Why I am Not an Atheist: Better Apathetic Godlessness than Illiberal Scientism

[rug]

Thomas Wells
7 May 2014

The New Atheist movement that developed from the mid-naughties around the self-styled "four horsemen of the apocalypse" - Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and Dawkins - had a tremendous public impact. Godlessness has never had a higher public profile. How wonderful for unbelievers like me?

Hardly. I am as embarrassed by the New Atheists as many Christians are embarrassed by the evangelical fundamentalists who appoint themselves the representatives of Christianity. It has often been noted that the New Atheist movement has contributed no original arguments or ideas to the debate about religion. But the situation is worse than this.

The main achievement of New Atheism - what defines it as a more or less coherent movement - is its promulgation of a particular version of atheism that is quasi-religious, scientistic and sectarian. New Atheism been so successful in redefining what atheism means that I find I must reject it as an identity. My unbelief is apathetic and simply follows from my materialism - I don't see why I should care about the non-existence of gods.

What the New Atheists call "rationality" is an impoverished way of understanding the world that excludes meanings and values. At the political level, the struggle for secularism requires more liberalism, not more atheism.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/05/07/3999576.htm

[cbayer]

1. The mid-naughties? Do you think that's a typo or he meant that, lol?

I think things are changing and that organized atheism is putting on new hats.

There always have to be rather radical leaders of new movements. They serve an important purpose in kicking open doors. Think ACT UP early in the AIDS crisis.

But at some point, they may become a liability.

I did not read this whole article, but what I did read I found to be too harsh and provocative. Like we are discussing in another thread, I think it's more productive to look for our commonalities and not further the divisions.

Perhaps I will read the entire thing later, but probably not.

[Shivering Jemmy]

2. Author claims he doesn't care enough about atheism

so he must distance himself from it.

Illogical.

Wasted my bandwidth.

[rug]

4. He's not rejecting atheism. He's rejecting this:

New Atheism been so successful in redefining what atheism means that I find I must reject it as an identity.

[cbayer]

5. That was not my takeaway from what I did read.

I read that he was rejecting "new atheism", not atheism in general.

It's similar to many christians who reject fundamentalism and are rejecting the label of christian because it has taken on certain connotations that they don't want to be associated with.

[rug]

3. Lol, looks like some kind of change.

Here's the original sentence from his nlog.

The New Atheist movement that has developed from the mid 2000s around the 'four horsemen of the apocalypse' - Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Dawkins, and various other pundits, has had a tremendous public impact.

http://www.philosophersbeard.org/

[immoderate]

6. Straw men, red herrings, R US!

What a pile of shit!

--imm

[rug]

7. Thank you for your thoughtful critique.

Benghazi!

[immoderate]

10. Yeah. You beat me to it.

Benghazi!1

--imm

[rug]

11. I was listening to Laura Ingraham on the way back from jail.

I was primed.

[immoderate]

13. Laura Ingraham was in jail?

--imm

[cbayer]

14. No, rug was in jail.

[rug]

15. Well, she said she's subbing for O'Reilly tonight so that might be an improvement.

[longship]

8. He lost me at "scientism".

I knew at that point, there is nothing of value here. Just another cartoon rendering of today's atheist movement; stick to stereotypes and one cannot go wrong, apparently.

Blecch!

On edit: the new atheist movement is doing just fine. There is all sorts of outreach and not all the publicity is this cartoonish characterization. And lumping Dennett together with the other Horsemen? Has this guy even read Dennett? How can you malign a guy who even looks like Santa Claus? (N.B. the guy did not single him out, but he did group him with Dawkins and Harris, three entirely different takes on atheism.)

I think the new atheism is doing just fine.

As usual, rug, you bring interesting things for discussion. Keep it up. even if I disagree, it is good to know what folks are saying/writing.

[rug]

9. I don't like cartoon rendering either.

There's been way too much of it.

[cbayer]

12. Why do you object to the term scientism?

I can understand that it can be used in a pejorative way and applied with too broad a brush.

But I have run into people that I think fit that description to some degree. They have elevated science and "reason" to a level that is almost religious.

I think they are rare, though, and not at all representative of non-believers.

I agree with you that what I am going to call the growing atheist movement is doing just fine. There are growing pains, but there always are. But in terms of being the next civil rights movement, I think it is mainly on the right track and we will se some significant changes happen relatively quickly.

[longship]

18. "Scientism" is always pejorative.

It is never, ever used in a constructive context, only one whose intent is to throw a chair into the room. It is argumentative and deliberately insulting.

I read the article, but this guy does not seem to have much of a coherent argument. He dumps the four horsemen into one steaming caldron -- well, except for Hitchens, I guess. I wonder if he has even read what they have written because all four have a completely different take on atheism. Their activism is all unique to their diverse personalities. Dawkins is intellectual and speaks about evidences as a scientist would do, but sometimes speaks off the cuff (which pisses people off). Hitchens wrote straight polemics with fairly wonderful prose, something even Dawkins does not do. Harris delves deep and writes in a difficult style to comprehend. His positions on religion are uncertain to me and I've read "The End of Faith" more than once. Dennett delves deep as well, but in a much more accessible style. I am a huge fan of "Breaking the Spell" where he argues for bringing all academic disciplines to bear on understanding what religion is, and is not.

But this guy just lumps it together as all being the same bad thing. When one opens with "scientism"... Not surprising. This is just another of a set piece, "Why New Atheism is Bad".

[cbayer]

21. I agree that it is pejorative and should be used only to describe those who

clearly hold that position.

But that doesn't make it less real. Religionist and religion apologist are terms that are generally pejorative as well, but very frequently used here to describe large groups of people and used with a broad brush.

As I said, I did not read the complete article and found him to be unnecessarily inflammatory and provocative.

Just like I find the articles that lump all believers together as being the same bad thing. Those are also just set pieces - "Why Religion is Bad".

[longship]

24. I would agree with that.

"Religion is Bad", like Hitchens' God is not Great. Still, even a polemic can be a great read, and it is. Hitchens was a great writer. However, it was in that vein.

But Hitchens somehow never portrayed it any other way than, if people think religion is good, they also have to accept the hind side as well. He had explicitly said so on multiple occasions. Dawkins has also done a bit of that, but he couldn't hold a candle for Hitchens.

It's interesting and somewhat puzzling to me that the author of the article chose to set Hitchens apart from the other three horsemen. Not sure what that's about.

[cbayer]

25. I found Hitchens fascinating to watch when he was doing the interview circuits.

He had a dark and razor like wit that was pretty captivating.

I reject his hostility towards religion in general and believers in particular, as I reject some of his other positions.

But I would never say he was boring.

Dawkins, otoh, bores me to tears.

I find Myers a fun read, though I often disagree with him.

And while I haven't seen much of your buddy Dennett, I have enjoyed what I have seen.

I think they are often put up as the "horsemen" because they kicked open the doors, even though their philosophies and manner differ tremendously.

[longship]

28. An interesting thing about Hitchens...

He deliberately took his book tour for God is not Great through the heart of the Bible Belt where he debated theologians at every single stop. The funny thing is that Christopher was a very gracious and friendly person. On multiple occasions during the tour the theologian would invite Hitch to continue the dialog with additional debates and Hitch would do his best to do that very thing.

Of course, the venue was packed each time, often to overflowing. On at least one occasion it was piped into another room so that more could hear the proceedings.

People liked Hitchens because he was above all a polite and gentle soul albeit with a rapacious wit. He was also one of the best on the limerick on the planet.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe interview from TAM 5 is a classic where he breaks into limericks and gets quite naughty. Unfortunately, the uncut, uncensored version with the limericks is premium content. Well worth the $2.00, though. The rest of the interview is episode 82, for those interested.

The world lost a gem when he died.

[cbayer]

30. He reminded me of Dorothy Parker in some ways -

very witty, half drunk and generally entertaining.

But I found some of his political positions objectionable and I really lost interest in him during the invasion of Iraq.

And, of course, his hostility towards religion and the religious really turned me off.

He was loved by many and his death was untimely, and he did entertain me at times.

[longship]

31. My favorite Hitchens quip:

On Jerry Falwell's death: If they had given him an enema he could have been buried in a matchbox.

I think he said that live on CNN. Too late to cut it.

And yes, I adore Dorothy Parker as well.

Miss Parker, please use the word "horticulture" in a sentence.

Dorothy Parker: You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.

[cbayer]

32. I also saw Hitchens say some things that I believe the network wished they had caught...

or maybe not.

Love the Dorothy Parker line. She and Oscar Wilde are my most favorite monarchs of the quip.

[mike_c]

16. "scientistic?"

Bwahahahaha....

[cbayer]

17. It's a word with a recognized definition.

[mike_c]

20. it's a word for a nonsensical understanding of science and how it works....

I don't dispute that scientism exists, but only someone with little understanding of how science works can have an "exaggerated belief in science." "Belief" in science in that sense is almost parody.

[cbayer]

23. I agree with that definition.

And I think that is how he is using it. Although I don't agree with his rather extreme take on this and his using it in a broad brush fashion, I don't see why it's use is funny.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

19. Science and the scientific method are about facts and reality, not about how we wish things were.

I've read a ton of Hitchens' work and some of Dawkins' work, and there's nothing illogical in there that I can see.

I think the problem is that those who are not atheist want these eloquent authors to just shut up and go away. And they are not.

And atheists do have meanings and values. I have no idea what this guy means about "scientism".

Bertrand Russell wrote "Why I am Not a Christian" in 1927. Those ideas are still valid.

Lin Yutang wrote "The Importance of Living" which includes the chapter "Why I am a Pagan" back in 1936. He explained why he became a Taoist after being raised by Christian missionaries.

Some of us have had Christianity and how wonderful and perfect Jesus is and how fabulous it is to be a Christian told to us by people obsessed with telling us that they are right and everyone else is wrong, to the point that we are sick of hearing about it.

[cbayer]

26. Yep. Being told "I am right and you are wrong" on issues like religion really is annoying.

Lots of people are sick of it and with those obsessed with doing it.

[cleanhippie]

33. You mean like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=129177

[intaglio]

22. So the author is apathetic therefore he writes about his apathy

How ... meta.

He claims (wrongly) that "New Atheism" is defined the way he wants it to be defined. He claims it is:
1) "quasi-religious" - err, nope;
2) Scientistic - WTF does Mr Wells mean by that? No atheist proposes science as a religion and science itself is a process;
3) Sectarian - what is the central authority from which these sects spring? Who Is the patriarch; what are the teachings of these individual sects?

Presumably, what Mr Well wants is to be "spiritual" because rationality "...is an impoverished way of understanding the world that excludes meanings and values," and atheist. Presumably Mr Wells has never heard of Ethics and empathy both of which are entirely rational.

[phil89]

29. Some people cannot think in terms outside of religion.

Non-religion= religious? Very odd.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Poorly researched.

It's the four horsemen of the non-apocalypse.

[ZombieHorde]

34. The beginning of the article wasn't very interesting to me.

It's just telling us what the author doesn't like to read and that New Atheists shouldn't act like Christians. The author seems to miss the point of atheist movements, which is about changing culture. But then the author starts to make actual arguments.

First, the New Atheists embrace the scientific method as a means of disproving or at least radically undermining various empirical claims made by religions, such as about the age of the Earth. Dawkins provides a particularly fine example of this in his explanation of how natural selection can produce the appearance of design, making supernatural creation stories redundant. This kind of exercise is important in establishing the viability of naturalism as a metaphysical thesis - it undermines the case for religion by showing that we don't need supernaturalism or scripture to explain anything about how the world we live in works.

I feel like the author is missing the point here. Scripture does explain many cultural things. The way scripture is presented can shape the way a person views the world, and how they will interact within it. For example, almost every argument against marriage equality is based upon scripture. Even President Obama originally said his opposition to marriage equality was based around scripture. "God is in the mix."

However, trying to treat religion as a whole as a scientific hypothesis which scientific methods could disprove is to beg the question.

I have not read all of their books, but I don't think that is what they are doing. The articles I have read by "The Four Horsemen" have addressed specific things and/or situations, as opposed to religion as a whole.

Since supernaturalist claims are always about (divine) intervention in contradiction to those physical laws, proving that creation or miracles are impossible merely puts you into agreement with the religionists.

I don't think anyone has claimed to prove miracles are impossible. And what does it matter if atheists and religionists agree on some things? There doesn't have to be total disagreement on all things to be in different "camps."


There are about three paragraphs dedicated to skepticism. The complaint seems to be skepticism doesn't include things like meaning, but that is not the purpose of skepticism. Philosophy and religion doesn't keep us up to date on current tax code, but that's cool since that is not the purpose of philosophy and religion.

At least some readers may be becoming rather annoyed by now at my failure to grasp the practical urgency of atheism. The reason atheism is important while afairieism isn't is that people who believe in fairies aren't imposing that belief upon others. New Atheism is not an intellectual project but a political one of resisting the illegitimate invasion of our civic and private spaces by religionists in positions of power who want to force your children to say prayers in school, ban contraception and abortion, block gay marriage to stop god from sending floods, and so on.

Oh. I guess the author does mention these things after all.

I admit to only having lived in countries, of which there are increasingly many, where religion has next to no political standing (Britain, Japan, Singapore, the Netherlands). So I don't have the visceral experience of social prejudice that atheists in the southern United States, say, receive from their communities, nor do I have to put up with politicians at every level declaring their allegiance to god as if that was some kind of argument for their competence.

And now I understand why the author didn't start here.

Wow. This article is really long. I stopped reading at the above paragraph.

[rug]

35. It's hard work.

[ZombieHorde]

36. What's hard work? lol nt

[rug]

37. I was sympathizing.

Wow. This article is really long. I stopped reading at the above paragraph.

When I read that, I had a Zen moment, looked around the room, and sighed

[ZombieHorde]

38. Ha! I'm not feeling very patient today. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

40. In britain, religion has no political standing?

I noticed that in the author's article, and I see you quoted that.

I totally take issue with that. Britain has a state religion. The monarchy, while largely politically toothless, is still enormously religious and wields significant 'traditional' power.

[Dorian Gray]

41. When I lived in the UK

most people were non-religious, despite being baptised into the Anglican church. religious there is really not what leads politics.

[mr blur]

42. No, it's quite correct. It has no political standing here.

Yes, we have a state religion but few people care about it. It's just there but it has no influence on politics or anything else really.

You might recall that recently the clown Cameron stated that we were a Christian country, thus prompting laughter, ridicule and a letter to the press from writers and scientists pointing out that, "No, it isn't". Tony Bliar notably pointed out that he didn't talk about his religion because people will "think you're a loony".

I'd have to say that, for all its constitutional safeguards, the USA has far more of a "state religion" than we do.

[struggle4progress]

39. Insofar as Mr Wells shares some of my views, I consider him a wise man,

with a developed capacity for deep and profound thought

And for this reason, I was most especially impressed by such remarks of his as:

I don't see why I should care about the non-existence of gods (to which I would add only, Exactly!);

from the perspective of freedom of religion jurisprudence, New Atheism would seem to have the same significance and deserve protection for the same reasons as any other religion (to which I say, Hear! Hear!);

There is no more need to meet the religious sceptical challenge - how can you prove there is no god? - than there is to meet the sceptical challenge of proving that you're not a brain in a vat imagining an external world (to which I should exclaim, Doh!); or

Science cannot actually refute the supernatural claims of religion because those claims are beyond its remit (to which I can only sigh, Thank you!)

[TM99]

43. His descriptions of New Atheism

are quite accurate. I said in another thread that I find it fascinating as a new phenomena. It has prophets, sacred texts, a dogma, various organizations that now promote it, word play, etc. Is it a new 'religion' in the most general sense of the term? Perhaps. I tend to think that psychologically it definitely is a new 'religion'.