Sociologist Stephen LeDrew on the Rift in the Atheism Movement

[rug]

By Staks Rosch | Oct 26, 2015

Stephen LeDrew, a post-doctoral researcher in sociology at Uppsala University in Sweden, is an atheist critical of the anti-religious “New Atheism” movement popularized by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. LeDrew puts his knowledge of sociology to the test in his sure-to-be controversial book, The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement (Oxford University Press, Nov.), calling the movement a "defense of the position of the white middle-class western male." PW caught up with the first-time author to talk more about how the growing atheist community is influenced by the social and political environment.

The principle argument of your book in an interesting one: can you tell me about it and how you developed it?

Essentially I argue that the atheist movement historically has been divided between two major groups: those who oppose religion because they see it as a challenge to scientific authority, and those whose objection is based more on religion as a source of, and support for, various forms of social oppression. Today in America it’s even more complicated, since there’s also a group of libertarians who tie atheism to economic freedom, and on the other side there’s a growing group of mostly younger atheists who are interested in promoting social justice and equality. So there’s a political spectrum within the atheist movement and there are groups that are directly opposed to each other in some ways.

Your book focuses on “New Atheism.” What motivated you to write about this topic?

I’m an atheist, and though my book is quite critical of the New Atheists, it’s certainly not because I object to atheism in general. When I first encountered the New Atheism I was excited that a critical public dialogue about religion was happening. As I got to know these thinkers better, I began to see some of their ideas as quite dangerous—such as the intolerance they have for cultural diversity and some seeds of social Darwinism. So part of the motivation for it was that I think atheism can do much better than people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/68423-sociologist-stephen-ledrew-on-the-rift-in-the-atheism-movement.html



http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-19-022517-9

[rug]

2. That's a fair description.

As usual, the 20% is the louder - on the internet.

What disturbs me is how many values they're willing to trample to advance the antitheism. Not to mention the dishonesty employed in doing so.

[safeinOhio]

3. Agreed

[MisterP]

5. hmm, but the NAs would consider themselves lefties and defenders of liberalism

(they just happen to think that "some" liberals are to blame for ISIS because they didn't nuke Mecca); likewise Gross and Levitt said we shouldn't really go out of our way to listen to excessively dark or female scientists because the Old Left will take care of us (think Stoll on Menchu); so in fact their anti-academic twaddle isn't so easily resisted by non-Objectivists

I think the main faultlines in discussing New Atheism lie around the notion of populism: we always forget that as much as the Randroid faction insists that they are the only Trueseers of Reality over the swine/lemmings/sheeple, yada yada--there's no selectivity to joining their little Clear Thinking cult; nobody reads Atlas Shrugged and concludes that they're one of the swag-bellied, heavy-lipped, rheumy-eyed Takers, now do they? so you have this weird mixture of rabble-rousing with elitism (similar to right-libertarian economics)

New Atheism is a reaction against the fundie antics of the 90s, and only "confirmed" by 9-11: it's such a fundamentalism-mirroring response to the extent that it basically says that only al-Baghdadi/Falwell/Bennett are the sole true Muslims/Christians/Jews; it just reinforces and normalizes the fundies' bankrupt anti-theology

more dangerously, NA studiously ignores US roles in the Middle East, perpetrates historical fraud (even insisting that a book written in 1874 is the be-all of the history of science), a childlike view of science that wouldn't pass a middle-school class, and it lets liberals buy into all of this because it's "anti-fundie"; so there's not a wall between the more hippieish types and the more iron-helmed ACSH types

[Humanist_Activist]

9. That poster limited himself to on a few so called spokesman, and selective reading or quote mining..

of the same.

Also, I really don't understand the issue, secularism in government is a good thing. It helps ensure religious freedom for everyone, fundamentalists, moderates, and liberals.

[MisterP]

11. here's a nice "lens" on how "secularity" isn't all that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
historians find, for example, that defeats for laicite in France *increase* separation of church and state, since that moves further from Turkey or the USSR's model--think the "headscarf ban" or PQ's "Charter of Values" that they tried to push a while back; what I'm saying is that the whole notion of "secularity" isn't actually self-evident and unproblematic

much of our Mideastern meddling was pre-Religious Right: we screwed with Afghanistan since--what, 1973? Charlie Wilson, Brzezinski, and Avrakotos weren't no snake-handlers; Israel had numerous secular and even leftie friends when we gave it its permanent cartes blanches after Suez, the Liberty, and especially Entebbe; until Dubya the Mideast Desk was entrusted to quite un-theological State and Pentagon flunkies (IIRC they were sent to bother the PRC); and as for the NAs--they were hardly at the forefront of the "No Blood for Oil" marches back in 2002, now were they?!

I'm actually *in* history of medicine so I've been scrounging for any neo-empiricists, and what Coyne and Pinker provide (science theory-wise) has struck me as singularly unimpressive: it's like they're trying to resurrect LogPos; it's not 1932 anymore, guys

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Well, yes, Richard Dawkins was at the forefront of the marches, more or less literally

A petition signed by 2,100 Oxford students and dons opposing a war on Iraq was handed to Downing Street today.

The signatories condemn a pre-emptive war on Iraq, which they say would bring "death and suffering to the people of Iraq". The petition calls for a regime change in Washington.
...
The signatories include Professor Richard Dawkins, who said on signing the statement: "The first Gulf War was provoked by a specific aggressive act by Iraq. Not to have retaliated in Kuwait could legitimately have been compared to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. Nothing of the kind applies to the present proposal for war. The timing gives the game away. It comes from America, not Iraq."

He went on: "Bush is the aggressor. Britain has no business following the lead of this unelected bully. Regime change in Iraq would be nice for Iraqis. Regime change in Washington would do more good to the world in the long run."

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/mar/06/highereducation.uk

[Humanist_Activist]

8. What is your evidence for any of the claims you made about "New Atheists" in your...

last paragraph?

[Fumesucker]

4. At least he managed to refrain from accusing atheists of slashing and burning

I suppose we must take comfort where we can.

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Sounds like this guy is doing a cheap cash-in...

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]We are often our own worst critics, what do you think some of the criticisms of your book might be?

I’ve already heard some criticisms from academic colleagues. I think one thing that will come up is the question of what evidence I have to support my arguments about the divisions within the atheist movement. I admit that I don’t have a lot of numbers or any large-scale surveys to back this up, but really I’m just trying to identify the major goals and sets of ideas that are shaping the movement, and I’m confident that I’ve done that.

So he has little to no evidence of this supposed rift, and in addition, I would like to know what he is using as evidence for his criticism of so call "New Atheism".

[Buzz cook]

12. Rift is too grand of a word to describe the differences between atheists

All you have to believe to be a member of the club is that there is no proof, or good evidence, that god exists. Everything after that falls in to the heading of various philosophies.

Where Dawkins differs most from other atheists is in degree. His apparent belief that Islam is "uniquely" destructive is odd imho. All religions are destructive, the degree to which they are destructive varies with the amount of secular power they have, again imho.

Given that the body count is stacked more on the christian George Bush's side it could be argued that christianity is the uniquely destructive religion.

IMHO that is a much smaller division than between different branches of the Abrahamic religions.