New atheists are not so new
Wed 11 Nov, 2009
Terry Sanderson of Britain’s National Secular Society says arguments with religion aren’t polite – nor should they be
In order to create a beautiful garden, you have first to clear the land of stones and weeds. This is what the so-called “new atheists” are trying to do. They are trying to show that the beliefs on which this great edifice of religion is built are a lot of empty hooey. A con trick, a sleight of hand.
Unless the theological claptrap is bulldozed from the garden, the green shoots of a rational, peace-loving secular society cannot emerge.
This is not a new argument at all. It has been raging since the 18th century Enlightenment and it has been resisted all the way by the vested interests in the various religious bodies. All the arguments made by the “new” atheists were made just as eloquently back in the 19th century by people like Robert Ingersoll who was, in his day, one of the most famous and influential men in America. (1)
When Ingersoll embarked on his lecture tours, great opera houses and meeting places would be literally packed to the rafters by people anxious to hear the great agnostic speak. There was a thirst for his anti-religious rhetoric then as now.
Ingersoll’s memory has now been effectively wiped from the national consciousness by the all-powerful Christian lobby. They just wouldn’t tolerate the idea that an anti-clerical God-basher could possibly be a great American. Ingersoll and his ideas were vaporised from popular culture.
That is, until the “new” atheists revived them, and lo and behold, they’re just as popular today as they were in Ingersoll’s day.
Until the apologists for religion are comprehensively shown to be, at best, deluded idiots or at worst manipulative power-mongers, we will never be free from their influence. They must be shown to be emperors with no clothes. You can’t do that by trying to talk to them on their own terms (“let’s have a bit of respect around here – these are deeply held beliefs and any challenged to them is unacceptably offensive”).
The present challengers of theology – Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling et al – have taken the gloves off. And rightly so, in my opinion. I consider H.L. Mencken had it right when he said: “Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing.” And Thomas Paine said it even better: “The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”
Someone very wise once said to me that if science disappeared from the world, we would still be living in caves. But if theology disappeared from the world, no-one would notice.
Religion has had it too easy for too long. It has erected around itself a completely unjustified wall of respectability. Many people still feel guilty or even “bad” if they speak ill of religion. I have even heard victims of the most horrendous clerical abuse holding back from condemning the institution that made that abuse possible because they had absorbed so deeply the Church’s own propaganda about its “goodness”.
The attack on the Catholic Church launched by Hitchens and Stephen Fry at a recent debate in London puts much more eloquently than I can the reason why their criticisms are more than justified.
The debate was not respectful and it is right that it was not respectful. I detest the Catholic Church with such vehemence that I do not wish to be respectful to it in any way. It is my considered judgment that on balance, if the Catholic Church had never existed, the world would be a better place.
The works of art that it is supposedly responsible for would still have been created, the music would still have been written, it would just have had a different subject matter. Artists would create art with or without religion – did Van Gogh need religion or Chopin? No trace of it in their work.
Those atheists who think the more honest and pugnacious of their brothers are “misguided” should give better reasons for saying so than the ones put forward by Jason Walsh. (3)
Terry Sanderson is the president of the National Secular Society
(1) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
(2) Intelligence Squared Debate - Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the World?, National Secular Society
(3) New atheists, old bottles, Jason Walsh, forth, November 10, 2009
COMMENTS
Comment removed by moderator
By Steve Smith on 2009 11 12
Let’s start by getting some facts straight. New Atheists is a term coined by the media, Dawkins et al have never refereed to themselves as “new”. The historical origins of atheism may be of interest to scholars but is of little interest to anyone else. The reason for the increased profile of atheism is down to one single event 9/11.
In the developed world we had rubbed along with religion for generations, there were some serious issues, particularly with the Christian Right in the US, but it was not high on most people’s agenda. At home we had a blasphemy law that was never used, an established church and faith schools etc. But 9/11 was such a colossal shock that it made us all look again at religion. We were now at war with a religiously driven ideology that was hell bent on our destruction. Despite the invasion of Afghanistan we were not at war with a state but with an idea and that idea had become franchised out to all corners of the globe. None of us were safe, in Nairobi, Madrid, Bali or London.
The great irony of 9/11 is that rather than subduing the ambitions of the other religions that might have been expected to keep their heads down, it emboldened them. Even the Sikhs, normally a quiet bunch tried to stop the performance of a play they considered disrespectful to their beliefs.
In his book and TV series Richard Dawkins led the charge, to assert reason over superstition. He saw not only the threat from Islam and religion but of society slipping back into a world of unreason and in the US in particular the growing power of creationism that replaced reason with myth. And more recently we have been presented with the grotesque resistance of Catholic Church to acknowledge the gross abuse of young people in their charge and the dear old Archbishop of Canterbury advancing the cause of Sharia law.
So Terry I have to disagree with you, this is not a continuous process of opposition to religion. 9/11 was the wake-up call to all rationalists who had been slumbering. We now have a fantastic opportunity to drag at least part of the world into the 21 century. The so called new atheists are driving an agenda that is making people think again about religion and god, they are encouraging atheists to come out of the closet, particularly in the US. It is my hope that in 100 years time these last few years will be seen as a watershed that reignited the ideas embodied in the Enlightenment.
By Graham Davis on 2009 11 12
The term ‘new atheism’ is so vague that it has become usurped in order to recycle all the old stereotypes about atheists.
A much better description of these atheists is the word ‘unapologetic’. See my post promoting this term here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18586 Or see Mano Singham’s post promoting it here: http://machineslikeus.com/news/introducing-unapologetic-atheist
We have done nothing wrong, and so we have nothing to apologize for. We are innocent until proven guilty. Criticizing beliefs, institutions, and dogmas is not the same thing as insulting people. I have heard countless *accusations* that we are rude, uncivil, strident, shrill, militant, etc., I have never seen any real evidence that this is in fact the case.
Until naysayers can either point out exactly what we’re doing wrong (providing quotes/clips instead of mere accusations), or until they can show that we are in fact *wrong* in our claim that religion does more harm than good, then they should take a bit of their own advice, and stop being so rude, uncivil, intolerant, etc. in trying to get us to shut up. Otherwise, they are simply hypocrites.
We have no reason to stop being unapologetic atheists, and plenty of reasons to continue.
By Wonderist on 2009 11 12
Write a new comment
