New atheists, old bottles
Tue 10 Nov, 2009
Today’s antagonistic ‘new atheism’ is boring, ignorant and ahistorical, says Jason Walsh
Until a few years ago I had nothing but respect for Richard Dawkins. Today, having witnessed his transubstantiation from popular scientist to TV personality, I am not so sure.
The certainties handed-down by Dawkins are transformed by his followers into a deterministic and, at best poorly argued, at worst anti-human, worldview. Let’s say it here and now: religion is not responsible for all human misery and adopting the tactics of the daftest believers, such as, say, paying for insulting advertisements on the side of busses, is childish and will do nothing to further the aims of humanists.
This is not a charter for learning to live with religion. Far from it. Although I dislike the idea of laughing at people’s beliefs, humanists and atheists should be up for a straight fight. Frankly, anglophone-style secularism doesn’t go far enough. Ireland could do with a dose of French-inspired laïcité. Having an antagonistic relationship with religion and all of its works is a good idea – why are Irish pro-choice campaigners so timid, for example?
The problem is that ‘new atheism’, by attempting to lay the blame for all ills at the feet of ‘organised’ religion, not only invalidates religion’s very many contributions to human society, particularly in the arts, it also allows all manner of other self-indulgent cod-spiritual nonsense to flower. Christopher Hitchens, author of ‘God is Not Great’, is the worst offender. Hitchens regularly issues broadsides against god-botherers that are lapped-up by atheists who know how to fight but not how to argue.
Hitchens is first and foremost a journalist – he wants readers and knows which buttons to press in order to get them. There is no problem with this in and of itself. I myself am no stranger to whipping-up a bit of controversy, having recently penned articles headlined ‘Let’s demolish Dublin’ and ‘I slept with Brian Cowen and Enda Kenny’. And yet Hitchens’ provocative musings are treated like serious contributions to scholarship. They’re not.
As Brendan O’Neill recently wrote in forth, Mother Teresa is a particular target for the bile of the rocket-eating set: “Today’s screechy anti-God squad is more interested in hectoring the religious – those stupid believers in anything they are told – than it is in creating an Enlightened culture that might give people something else, something more profound, to think about and contribute to.”(1)
Picking one’s battles is all very well, but why attack just one pile of prejudices?
Article continues after advertisement
Here are a few other sacred cows in dire need of being transformed into burgers and shoes:
The Dali Lama’s trendy ‘Free Tibet’ campaign ignores the fact that what the Tibetan exiles object to is not the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarianism (Tibet’s priest class are a dab hand at that themselves) but its habit of building roads, railways and schools, and yet little is said about this – or the murder and mistreatment of worshippers of Buddhist deity Dorje Shugde by the Dali Lama’s followers.
Environmentalism, too, is busily transforming itself from a secular religion into an actual belief system, complete with the thinly-disguised concepts of sin-eating, indulgences and divinity and a host of anointed sacerdotalists ready and willing to tell us we’ll burn as a result of our behavior. No-one wants to see widespread pollution but where are the demands to put humanity at the top of the pyramid of beliefs?
The pope is regularly crucified for assisting ‘genocide’ in Africa by forbidding the use of prophylactic contraception, thus encouraging the spread of Aids. Two key points are usually missed by middle-class anti-Catholics: most African countries are not Catholic and, more importantly, since when did Catholics pay any attention to papal bull?
Meanwhile Catholic and Anglican leaders are regularly criticised by people who have eaten one too many editions of the Irish Times for their expressions of ‘homophobia’. Why? Christian anti-gay sentiment should be celebrated as an honest expression of their beliefs. The fact that these beliefs are stupid is not the point – why should atheists support attempts by a minority of liberal churchgoers to drag their institutions into the modern era? Surely we should prefer if they were left festering where they belong? I say, “Hooray for bigots – let’s hear their nonsense”.
The Catholic Church in Ireland is being slapped-about for clerical sex abuse but no-one blames the state for failing to live up to its responsibilities and educate children without the assistance of religious organisations or the fact that it spent decades criminalising working class children.
Homeopathic ‘medicine’ is now taken seriously, therapy and counselling are remaking people into passive victims, gender studies and multiculturalism promote difference rather than equality… the list of contemporary prejudices that are left unchallenged is as endless as the Guardian’s public sector recruitment pages.
Today’s media-friendly atheism knows how to get attention but it doesn’t know how to win an argument. Spouting sneery, bourgeois dinner-party prejudice is no substitute for putting forward a serious argument for human-centred morality and, more importantly, policy.
I’m all for throwing stones but forgive me if a few sanctimonious atheists get their windows broken in the crossfire.
Jason Walsh is a journalist, the editor of forth — and an atheist.
(1) Mugging Mother Teresa, Brendan O’Neill, forth, October 26, 2009
Comments below
We also encourage more formal letters to the editor: letters@forth.ie
Well I read this twice and I’m still none the wiser as to what the author’s point is.
By Simon Gardner on 2009 11 11
I concur entirely with Simon Gardiner’s comment. It seems that the author’s only point is that he has something against people expressing their opinion.
By Simon Tuffen on 2009 11 11
The point is nothing to do with people expressing their opinion. It’s that shrill demagoguery does nothing to advance secularism and that there are plenty of absurd views floating around that have little or nothing to do with religion.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 11 11
This makes the same mistake of confusing Atheism with Secularism. Most religious people are secularists in that they do not want to live in a Theocracy and would prefer not to have the state involve itself in religion. We now have a situation in the UK where the Govt. has diverted massive amounts of taxpayers funds without any kind of electoral consent and pumped it into the coffers of the organised religions, but the price that the Organised religions have to pay is that the State will decide what doctrine is or is not acceptable to be spoken or taught in schools, this, of course is an impossible task but it takes away the right to decide from the religious heirarchy. Atheists have become vocal because,in my opinion, the UK Govt. have conducted a campaign involving a volume of legislation and disadvantageous establishment measures against the non religious that when taken together could be considered to be a hate crime and the Atheists,who were indifferent to religion, are fighting back,mostly with the question-what evidence is there that the standards and support for goodness of the religious are higher than the standards of the non religious? And the other question-why is doctrine valued above goodness and kindness?
By Keith on 2009 11 11
Jason
I agree that not all the world’s problems are due to religion. I don’t think I have ever heard Dawkins or Hitchens or anyone else claim that that religion is the cause of ALL the world’s problems. But that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong for anyone to point out the problems they attach to religion; or that if they criticise religion they must criticise everything else that’s wrong with the world at the same time. The same logic that you use would dictate that anyone making a speach on problems with environmental pollution, for example, must also point out all the problems with religion. There is an atheist agenda, and it is against religion. What else would atheists campaign against? And I think most of us who are atheists see religion causing problems that do not need an alternative “solution” if religion is removed from the equation. So there is no onus on atheists to offer any alternative answers to religion. Atheists can make up their own minds and will doubtlessly disagree on matters where religion is not a concern.
By Simon Tuffen on 2009 11 11
“insulting advertisements on the side of busses”, wow, if you think that “There’s probably no god so relax and enjoy your life” is ‘insulting’ then you must be really insecure in your faith!
Mind you, if this counts as an insult then no wonder that the erudite and civilised Prof Dawkins is so often described like a cross between Ian Paisley and a foaming Mullah.
However, I do approve of your use of the word ‘transubtantiation’ to describe Dawkin’s perceived change of role. Much like your magic biscuits, nothing has really changed, the professor still writes factual books to advance the public understanding of science, but after a few magic words from religiious leader their followers believe it’s been changed into something else. Bread becomes flesh, the science writer becomes a ‘militant’. Neither ‘transformation’ has any basis in reality
By P.J. on 2009 11 11
PJ — Read the article again. I myself am an atheist. Your tone rather neatly encapsulates what I was getting at.
Dawkins is not just a science writer, not any longer, and his TV shows had little to do with science.
As for the bus ads, I don’t want to see people hectored by irreligious messages any more than I want to see them hectored with religious ones. Besides, they showed a lack of balls, don’t you think? Why write “probably”. I don’t think there is “probably no god”, I am convinced there is no god.
Simon — I would prefer to see a campaign for a truly secular society. Arguing about the existence of god doesn’t cut it for me (though it’s interesting enough). I agree there is no requirement on atheists to suggest an alternative to religion.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 11 11
Jason
I agree that they showed a lack of balls with the “probably” on the bus ads, although do you not think they were making an effort to try not to appear too arrogant?
While I agree to an extent with your point that people shouldn’t be hectored by irreligious messages any more than with religious ones, I do think it is necessary to make regular forceful and deliberately disrespectful points against religion in order to demonstrate that we don’t consider that religion itself should expect or demand any respect from society as a whole. Sometimes that may come across as arrogant, but I believe it only does so to those who have not escaped the childhood indoctrination that you must never attack a religion. It is precisely because of the nature of organised religions and the hold they have had over society that those who oppose them have to be very forthright in expressing their views.
By Simon Tuffen on 2009 11 11
Simon,
I will respond properly in a little while. I have a few things to do first. In the meantime, here are two short (semi-related) pieces.
Ourselves together
Fixing Irish politics
By the way, amusingly I asked Google to filter out religious ads on this site (because I consider them to be a poor proposition, commercially speaking. Clearly they have not done it yet.)
By Jason Walsh on 2009 11 11
Hi (again) Simon,
Apologies for the delay. I’ve been knee-deep in web design and am still not finished.
Anyway, what struck me about the bus ads was that they were actually ads for agnosticism, not atheism. Besides this, I also felt they were also a cheap stunt that was beneath atheists who are, by definition, not arguing for anything.
I agree that forceful argument for the complete separation of church and state are necessary – but I have little interest in arguing about the existence of god with believers. I don’t really see the point.
Organised religion is a term that bothers me. What about unorganised religion? Surely that’s worse? All manner of solipsistic and narcissistic belief systems have popped-up in recent decades – individual religions that reinforce personal prejudices.
By Jason Walsh on 2009 11 11
Hi Jason
I’d consider unorganised religion to be a contradiction in terms. My understanding of religion is that it is any kind of organised faith-based belief system. I’ve no problem with individuals holding a belief that is not imposed upon them, that they do not impose on others, and which does not cause them to harm anyone else. I don’t have a problem with anyone trying to argue for or against any faith based beliefs (that represents freedom of speach), although I am strongly against adults doing so to children.
I think how far you go to argue against any individuals or organisations depends entirely upon the stance taken by that individual or group. If a group (e.g. the Catholic Church or the Church of England) make it its business to claim moral and political authority, then it sets itself up for the strongest criticism, just as any politician does.
Not all atheists have an agenda, but atheist secularists - indeed any true secularist - should consider it reasonable to stand up to any unelected individual or group that considers it should have special privilege or power and frankly tell it where to go. Maybe the bus advertisement was an ill-conceived stunt, I wouldn’t like to argue one way or the other on that, but I fully support the general campaign to make the public at large realise that they don’t HAVE to pay any respect whatsover to religion. And I can understand the tactic of maybe sometimes slightly stepping over the line of what might be reasonable or tasteful, in order to gain publicity for the cause. It’s a question of balance and suppose we’ll never all agree on exactly how to do that, as you have pointed out.
By Simon Tuffen on 2009 11 12
Jason ‘hectored’? Come on, the message on the bus couldn’t have been any more polite, anyone who deosn’t like can just ignore it like so many of us happily ignore the posters outside churches or the alpha course ads.
The ‘probably’ by the way was to appease the Advertising Standards Authority who felt it was otherwise an unprovable claim. A level of accuracy they didn’t apply to the ‘There is definately a God’ counter campaign BTW.
Yes Dawkins appears on TV more now, the nature of modern celebrity is that it is self reinforcing. But the career path that has lead him to this is clear and logical, there has been no great sea change. His greatest output has tended to be concerned with explaining science (and particually biology) to the masses, that hasn’t changed, but the increasing profile of creationism is a challenge to scientific education and he has met it.
It’s a shame that his critics don’t concentrate on his arguments rather than the repetative and generally inaccurate ad homs that we keep hearing.
Simply bleating about how nasty the ‘new athiests’ (and really, what does that even mean? I don’t believe in god but in a different way?) completely ignores the fact that they are simply voicing their opinions, in a civilised way, on current events in what is supposed to be a free society. The regularity with which they appear simply reflects the amount of religious influence in this society that appears for them to comment on.
When secular state schools start demanding that parents prove that they are NOT religious before accepting their children, then you can start legitimately refering to atheists as militant and ‘anti-human’. Till then, keep some perspective.
By P.J. on 2009 11 12
I would be interested to know what Mr Walsh has seen which has cemented his opinion of Prof Dawkins as a media personality rather than a scientist, thus prompting this article.
A couple of points: According to the Vatican, about 17 percent of Africans are Catholic. Of this 17 percent, or just over 170,000,000 people, how many do you suppose have had the education to understand that when the Pope says condoms spread AIDS and HIV, he is not entirely correct? In the West we may recognise it as “Papal Bull”, in Africa many do not.
As for the message on the bus - Richard Dawkins does not say there is no God. He says that based on the available scientific evidence there is probably no God. The existence of God cannot be disproven by science any more than it can be proven. There is nothing to test. In The God Delusion, his conclusions are based on scientific likelihoods of the case for Atheism as well as deconstruction of the arguments for the existence of God. It would be inaccurate to state there is definitely no God because there is nothing which proves the lack of existence of him.
What Dawkins consistently argues is that we should only give credence in matters of Education, Politics etc to things which can be irrefutably proven. I agree with him.
Theo
By Theo on 2009 11 17
Add your comment
