What exactly is "new" about the "new atheism"?

[Humes fork]

Early 20th century: Bertrand Russell claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Early 21st century: Richard Dawkins claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Why is Dawkins considered a "new" atheist when he is saying the same thing as Russell did? Both explicitly claim to be atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of God, and both also talk about the harmful effects of religion. In general, Russell and Dawkins had (have) rather similar outlooks on life, despite their rather different fields. Take a look at Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. It's pretty much what Dawkins could say.

[Piscivore]

More people know about it.

[AdMan]

I think that the "new atheism" proposes that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God, but that religion is actually a negative force in society, and should be actively opposed. The "new atheists" (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett in particular--the "four horsemen") have forcefully pushed this argument in popular books.

ETA: Here's the Wikipedia article on the New Atheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

And I think Piscivore is right about it--prior to the four horsemen, when was the last bestseller on atheism?

[JoeBentley]

I think the "New Atheism" is much more about tone then the message.

Basically atheist have stopped being timid and apologetic about it. We've stopped talking around the issue and are addressing it directly.

[Mark6]

Someone already said on this forum, so I apologize for quoting without giving credit:

"Old Atheism" was about intellectuals, and only intellectuals. It did not affect the masses, and so did not bother religious establishements -- at least saner ones, like Catholic church and Church of England.

"New Atheism" is about the masses. So it is a danger to religion the way old atheism was not.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by AdMan

I think that the "new atheism" proposes that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God, but that religion is actually a negative force in society, and should be actively opposed.

That's not that new either.

I think Mark6 is correct. "New" atheists are using mass media to take their message to ordinary people instead of the educated elites.

[Beerina]

What people have said. They are taking religion at face value, and pointing out that its core remaining value, faith, AKA belief without proof, is not only not a respectable position, but actually harmful...and is perhaps the greatest harmer of humanity.

[slingblade]

Good discussion! I hadn't thought about any of this, and I concur with the views posted so far.

Atheism today is the Twisted Sister of philosophy.



("We're not gonna take it. NO! We ain't gonna take it. We're not gonna take it anymorrrrre!")

[Humes fork]

I see your point about targeting the masses, not just an educated elite, and I think it is valid. But didn't Bertrand Russell also try to do that? He wrote in a rather simple language, and I don't think he is at all unworthy of being considered the people's philosopher.

[Hokulele]

Heck, Thomas Paine did that even earlier.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Take a look at Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. It's pretty much what Dawkins could say.

Just a note: I don't think I'd ever read that before, but having done so now, I agree with your assessment. That was an amazing read; thank you for linking it.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Heck, Thomas Paine did that even earlier.

Fewer people were literate back then.

But I think even the targeting of the masses thing isn't all that new. There really isn't all that much new about the new atheists, but people forget the past, so they seem new. Kind of like how every hurricane season can seem like a sign of the end times, even if it's no more destructive than the year before.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beerina

What people have said. They are taking religion at face value, and pointing out that its core remaining value, faith, AKA belief without proof, is not only not a respectable position, but actually harmful...and is perhaps the greatest harmer of humanity.

Which position one is expected to very often accept as a matter of faith. One of the hallmarks of the "New" atheism is the lack of interest in philosophical rigour, which couldn't be said of Russell.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by westprog

One of the hallmarks of the "New" atheism is the lack of interest in philosophical rigour,

That assertion doesn't have much hair.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by westprog

Which position one is expected to very often accept as a matter of faith.

No, the "new" atheists provide plenty of evidence that religion is harmful.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by westprog

Which position one is expected to very often accept as a matter of faith.

Nearly ruining my life with fanatic, fearful adherence to Christianity was good evidence of the harm religions can do.

What's that old saying: faith is power.

Oh, wait, no, it's the EXACT OPPOSITE.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by slingblade

What's that old saying: faith is power.

Oh, wait, no, it's the EXACT OPPOSITE.

Power is faith?

I do sacrifice part of my paycheck to APS every month....

[TragicMonkey]

New Atheism has only one quarter of the calories of Classic Atheism! Same great taste, but better for your waist!

Also available in Blueberry, Cherry, and Wasabi Vanilla!

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

More people know about it.

Yup. Popularity, plain and simple.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by westprog

Which position one is expected to very often accept as a matter of faith. One of the hallmarks of the "New" atheism is the lack of interest in philosophical rigour, which couldn't be said of Russell.

Apparently, you haven't bothered to read any of Daniel Dennett's work, and he's one of the so-called Four Horsemen of the New Atheism. He's also a professional philosopher.

Try again, westprog.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by westprog

Which position one is expected to very often accept as a matter of faith. One of the hallmarks of the "New" atheism is the lack of interest in philosophical rigour, which couldn't be said of Russell.

It has nothing to do with faith, but here you are projecting the weakness of your theism.

Beyond pointing out why religion is a detriment, the basic backbone of Dawkins', Harris', and Hitchens' position is the fact that there is no compelling argument for theism or religion, there is only personal first person testimony and first hand experience and a mountain of arguments which rely on circular logic and fallacy.

First hand experience is sufficient evidence to consider something yourself, but it's not sufficient evidence as an anecdote to compel others with. Trusting other people is not a compelling argument.

[SusanB-M1]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Good discussion! I hadn't thought about any of this, and I concur with the views posted so far.

Atheism today is the Twisted Sister of philosophy.



("We're not gonna take it. NO! We ain't gonna take it. We're not gonna take it anymorrrrre!")

Agree - especially as there is vastly more knowledge now and the means for all to access it.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Just a note: I don't think I'd ever read that before, but having done so now, I agree with your assessment. That was an amazing read; thank you for linking it.

You are welcome, glad you liked it!

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Beyond pointing out why religion is a detriment, the basic backbone of Dawkins', Harris', and Hitchens' position is the fact that there is no compelling argument for theism or religion, there is only personal first person testimony and first hand experience and a mountain of arguments which rely on circular logic and fallacy.

Exactly! I don't understand why this is so controversial.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Power is faith?

I do sacrifice part of my paycheck to APS every month....

Yes actually. Power for the leadership can be derived from faith of the masses.

[Humes fork]

I'm aware of Victor Stenger's book The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, and based on what I can find of it (including the part Amazon makes it possible to read without buying it), it's something I'm more or less completely behind.

[P.J. Denyer]

IMHO adding the epitath 'New' is just a way to trivialize them in the absence of a genunie counter argument, it makes it sound like they are divorced from the long tradition of atheist thought so they can be dismissed as a fad.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Early 20th century: Bertrand Russell claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Early 21st century: Richard Dawkins claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Why is Dawkins considered a "new" atheist when he is saying the same thing as Russell did? Both explicitly claim to be atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of God, and both also talk about the harmful effects of religion. In general, Russell and Dawkins had (have) rather similar outlooks on life, despite their rather different fields. Take a look at Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. It's pretty much what Dawkins could say.

The label "new atheists" was a derogatory term coined by theists. I think it was to help them differentiate modern atheists from the "old atheists" who theists would have been allowed to burn, stone and otherwise mutilate back in the glory days of their mythology.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

IMHO adding the epitath 'New' is just a way to trivialize them in the absence of a genunie counter argument, it makes it sound like they are divorced from the long tradition of atheist thought so they can be dismissed as a fad.

Agree.

And what Slingblade said.

[epepke]

There is no such thing as the New Atheism, except as back-formation from the New Atheists, originally so named by their detractors.

Still, it describes a group of people. I would include at the top the Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Daniels) and also Randi. These are people who, before 9/11, largely ignored religion qua religion but targeted it afterward. It is tempting to say that 9/11 caused them to decide that religion could no longer be ignored, but no doubt it snowballed.

The first reaction I can remember was by Richard Dawkins on September 15, 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...phyandsociety1

[SusanB-M1]

Originally Posted by epepke

It is tempting to say that 9/11 caused them to decide that religion could no longer be ignored, but no doubt it snowballed.

I think another reason is that during the past, maybe, twenty years there has been an increasingly strong tendency to question beliefs and no longer treat the subject as it was when I was young, when it was the height of bad manners to bring it up.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Early 20th century: Bertrand Russell claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Early 21st century: Richard Dawkins claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Why is Dawkins considered a "new" atheist when he is saying the same thing as Russell did? Both explicitly claim to be atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of God, and both also talk about the harmful effects of religion. In general, Russell and Dawkins had (have) rather similar outlooks on life, despite their rather different fields. Take a look at Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. It's pretty much what Dawkins could say.

I thought this line was funny in your link:

Quote:

It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."

[Donn]

New generation, new wave. It'll all be new again too.

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Power is faith?

I do sacrifice part of my paycheck to APS every month....

Oh, yes!

The Appalachian Pentecostal Seminary where they teach the three S's:
snake handling, strychnine drinking, and speaking in tongues.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Early 20th century: Bertrand Russell claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Early 21st century: Richard Dawkins claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

Why is Dawkins considered a "new" atheist when he is saying the same thing as Russell did? Both explicitly claim to be atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of God, and both also talk about the harmful effects of religion. In general, Russell and Dawkins had (have) rather similar outlooks on life, despite their rather different fields. Take a look at Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. It's pretty much what Dawkins could say.

"New Atheists" is just a label invented by theists who prefer atheists who keep quiet.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Mojo

"New Atheists" is just a label invented by theists who prefer atheists who keep quiet.

And this. The "New Atheists" aren't following the "rules."

A new atheist is simply an atheist that isn't apologetic and meek about it.

[stevea]

Wikipedeia suggests the "New Atheism"

Quote:

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] The series of popular books associated with New Atheism argue that recent scientific advancements demand a less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religious fanaticism than had traditionally been extended by many secularists

We can quibble with that definition, but seems close from my POV, and it is clearly distinct from Russel's WIANAC.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Early 20th century: Bertrand Russell claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore we shouldn't believe in God.

No H'Fork - Russell does NOT say that, or anything close in the paper you cite. He describes Christians as persons with a positive affirmative belief in a body of doctrine, he recites the errors in some shallow, simplistic, doctrinaire arguments that claim to evidence for a Christian sort of god, . He recites some defects in Christs teaching, defects in the argument that we should all be immoral w/o religion, produced arguments that Christianity is based on negative emotions and backward thinking. He concludes with a positicve assertions that we should not believe in this Christian doctrinaire system, but instead approach problems with rationalism.

Russell does not argue generally against the concept of god here. None of his arguments directly apply to the Tao or to Hinduism for example and only indirectly to Jewish or Islamic beliefs. Nor does he claim here there is no evidence, merely that several simplistic claims of evidence of a JIC-god are false.

So Humes_fork's assertion, that Russell and the NAs are saying the same thing, fails badly.
----

WRT the the New Atheists(NAs) ... it is said they use an "argument from science", and Humes _forks' statement is nothing more than a recitation of an application of the scientific method - that we cannot study or assert any support for a proposition without evidence. But there are severe problems with that argument.

First , we live in an era where anyone with a luke-warm IQ claims to adhere to science, yet most are absolutely ignorant of the topic and it's methods. I can't count the number of times I've been accosted by someone who couldn't pass an HS chem class, probably couldn't pass a grade school science course, can't recite any evidence, yet asserts that global warming is "proven science" and similar nonsense terms. 'Science' as used by the masses has become something antithetical to science - an argument from authority. So the NA argument has immediate appeal to a certain category of people merely by appealing to science.

The OP, calling himself 'Humes fork', should be familiar with David Hume's work on empiricism, and therefore should understand why the scientific method is fundamentally not applicable to supernatural claims, except to the extent these claim to produce reliable physical evidence. So the sci-method can easily examine claims of turning water into wine IF the event is reproducible. OTOH sci-method can't be applied to the Tao, or to whether some god exists as a trinity - unless these claims generate reproducible evidence; IOW are testable.

The NAs repeatedly argue that theism leads people to horrific social acts; crusades, the spanish Inquisition, 9-11, middle-eastern conflicts. Yet they fail to show that this outcome would be better if we merely convinced people to avoid religion. Certainly the brief history of non-theists states in the USSR & China have demonstrate mass murder on a scale unmatched by religiously generated violence. My view is that the Israel.vs.MiddleEast and N/S Ireland conflicts are strictly cultural/territorial conflicts that just happen to divide on religious basis.

NAs argue that religious fundamentalism prevents scientific progress. There is an argument that this was historically the case in Medieval Europe under a strongly dominating Catholic church with rigid doctrine and a lot of power. It's a much harder case to make today in the West. I don't believe that dissuading Jerry Falwell and his followers to believe in deism will improve their thinking enough to cause them to contribute to or even tolerate science. More likely we get another mass of politically motivated 'science as argument from authority' closed-minded types. It seems clear that many people, both religious and non-religious are incapable of taking Russell's admonition to "Conquer the world by intelligence".

Most offensive to me, many NA advocates go far beyond criticizing religion and promoting non-religion on to genuine intolerance. "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every person can believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principle forces driving us toward the abyss" - Sam Harris. What is the alternative Sam - thought police ? My view is that the great harm of religion is precisely it's intolerance, the doctrinaire Church of Medieval Europe, the bookish, legalistic Islam of today. Now some of the NAs want to become the very thing they despise - a closed minded anti-science belief system.

NAs have a solid argument that select conventional religions are bad, however they have completely failed to show that non-religion enforced on people from outside produces better outcomes. Russell encourages people to use their freedom of thought to avoid the pitfalls of doctrinaire Christianity and use rationalism and intelligence. Quite different, some NAs are intolerant of ideas they consider wrong - unlike Russell they promote a new close-minded system of doctrine.

ps - to avoid some of the shallow criticism that regularly appears on this forum, I am an atheist, physicist. I am not an apologist for religions.

[baron]

Originally Posted by stevea

Most offensive to me, many NA advocates go far beyond criticizing religion and promoting non-religion on to genuine intolerance. "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every person can believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principle forces driving us toward the abyss" - Sam Harris. What is the alternative Sam - thought police ?

That's a significant misrepresentation of Sam Harris' position. The alternative to tolerance is not fascism, it's the freedom to speak out with directness and honesty. He is referring to the special dispensation religion has that exempts it from analysis or criticism. Harris makes repeated distinctions between personal belief and organised, controlling ideology. Indeed, it could be said he's a fan of personal religion and spirituality.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by stevea

Wikipedeia suggests the "New Atheism"


We can quibble with that definition, but seems close from my POV, and it is clearly distinct from Russel's WIANAC.



No H'Fork - Russell does NOT say that, or anything close in the paper you cite. He describes Christians as persons with a positive affirmative belief in a body of doctrine, he recites the errors in some shallow, simplistic, doctrinaire arguments that claim to evidence for a Christian sort of god, . He recites some defects in Christs teaching, defects in the argument that we should all be immoral w/o religion, produced arguments that Christianity is based on negative emotions and backward thinking. He concludes with a positicve assertions that we should not believe in this Christian doctrinaire system, but instead approach problems with rationalism.

Russell does not argue generally against the concept of god here. None of his arguments directly apply to the Tao or to Hinduism for example and only indirectly to Jewish or Islamic beliefs. Nor does he claim here there is no evidence, merely that several simplistic claims of evidence of a JIC-god are false.

So Humes_fork's assertion, that Russell and the NAs are saying the same thing, fails badly.
----

WRT the the New Atheists(NAs) ... it is said they use an "argument from science", and Humes _forks' statement is nothing more than a recitation of an application of the scientific method - that we cannot study or assert any support for a proposition without evidence. But there are severe problems with that argument.

First , we live in an era where anyone with a luke-warm IQ claims to adhere to science, yet most are absolutely ignorant of the topic and it's methods. I can't count the number of times I've been accosted by someone who couldn't pass an HS chem class, probably couldn't pass a grade school science course, can't recite any evidence, yet asserts that global warming is "proven science" and similar nonsense terms. 'Science' as used by the masses has become something antithetical to science - an argument from authority. So the NA argument has immediate appeal to a certain category of people merely by appealing to science.

The OP, calling himself 'Humes fork', should be familiar with David Hume's work on empiricism, and therefore should understand why the scientific method is fundamentally not applicable to supernatural claims, except to the extent these claim to produce reliable physical evidence. So the sci-method can easily examine claims of turning water into wine IF the event is reproducible. OTOH sci-method can't be applied to the Tao, or to whether some god exists as a trinity - unless these claims generate reproducible evidence; IOW are testable.

The NAs repeatedly argue that theism leads people to horrific social acts; crusades, the spanish Inquisition, 9-11, middle-eastern conflicts. Yet they fail to show that this outcome would be better if we merely convinced people to avoid religion. Certainly the brief history of non-theists states in the USSR & China have demonstrate mass murder on a scale unmatched by religiously generated violence. My view is that the Israel.vs.MiddleEast and N/S Ireland conflicts are strictly cultural/territorial conflicts that just happen to divide on religious basis.

NAs argue that religious fundamentalism prevents scientific progress. There is an argument that this was historically the case in Medieval Europe under a strongly dominating Catholic church with rigid doctrine and a lot of power. It's a much harder case to make today in the West. I don't believe that dissuading Jerry Falwell and his followers to believe in deism will improve their thinking enough to cause them to contribute to or even tolerate science. More likely we get another mass of politically motivated 'science as argument from authority' closed-minded types. It seems clear that many people, both religious and non-religious are incapable of taking Russell's admonition to "Conquer the world by intelligence".

Most offensive to me, many NA advocates go far beyond criticizing religion and promoting non-religion on to genuine intolerance. "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every person can believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principle forces driving us toward the abyss" - Sam Harris. What is the alternative Sam - thought police ? My view is that the great harm of religion is precisely it's intolerance, the doctrinaire Church of Medieval Europe, the bookish, legalistic Islam of today. Now some of the NAs want to become the very thing they despise - a closed minded anti-science belief system.

NAs have a solid argument that select conventional religions are bad, however they have completely failed to show that non-religion enforced on people from outside produces better outcomes. Russell encourages people to use their freedom of thought to avoid the pitfalls of doctrinaire Christianity and use rationalism and intelligence. Quite different, some NAs are intolerant of ideas they consider wrong - unlike Russell they promote a new close-minded system of doctrine.

ps - to avoid some of the shallow criticism that regularly appears on this forum, I am an atheist, physicist. I am not an apologist for religions.

The hilited sentences contradict the bolded one.

[NewtonTrino]

I think not being meek and actually trying to actively argue against the god hypothesis.

In a non-business setting I will challenge peoples faith directly. There are still some places that will get you hung.