Comments on: Ophelia Benson attempts to score some points … fails.

By: mjr256

mjr256 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:01:52 +0000

I’ve been an atheist activist since 1993, before it was trendy. Am I a “New Atheist?” Thomas Paine wrote “The Rights of Man” in 1794. Is he a “New Atheist?” Regardless of whether it is sometimes used positively, the term is utterly meaningless, is used to shortcut thinking, and has absolutely turned into a pejorative (See: comments section on The Intersection blog) that’s now simply thrown out there as a substitute for an actual argument against a legitimate intellectual position. There’s nothing bigoted about criticizing faith. Bigotry is hating a person for aspects that they cannot change. Religion, on the other hand, is ideology. And dangerous ideology ought to be criticized even if it hurts someone’s feelings. I don’t really think I have to mention the obvious examples of dangerous ideology from the 20th century. Writers like Sam Harris have gone to great lengths to clarify the reasoning behind their charges against religious moderates as well. So far, I’ve yet to actually hear a real rational argument that refutes those charges.

By: John M. Lynch

John M. Lynch — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:33:18 +0000

James said: Perhaps one very important aspect of the ‘new atheism’ movement is their strong critique of moderate believers and so-called ‘accommodationists’ searching for a middle ground or otherwise reaching out to people of faith to join sides against fundamentalists. This certainly comes out in everything by Sam Harris that I have read. I think that is very much true. And I think that part of what Mooney and Kirshenbaum are reacting against (as indeed I have reacted against in the past).

By: James

James — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:28:50 +0000

Perhaps one very important aspect of the ‘new atheism’ movement is their strong critique of moderate believers and so-called ‘accommodationists’ searching for a middle ground or otherwise reaching out to people of faith to join sides against fundamentalists. This certainly comes out in everything by Sam Harris that I have read.

By: James

James — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:25:38 +0000

I was just about to ask, if the ‘new atheism’ is understood as a social movement then what, other than the social, is ‘new’ about the atheism being espoused? I would agree that there seems to be little, if anything, new about the ideas or arguments being used. If anything, atheism has broken into the mainstream in ways in which it never had before.

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:11:38 +0000

Benson quotes Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s book as stating that “America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former. The New Atheists err in insisting that such a choice needs to be made.”

I would rewrite this as “America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between *empirical claims made by religions which have been falsified by science* and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former. The New Atheists err in insisting that such a choice needs to be made.”

By: John M. Lynch

John M. Lynch — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:31:40 +0000

It certainly could be in danger of becoming so. My currently feeling is that the term certainly describes a coherent (albeit loose) movement, while the ideas being espoused are not, of course, new. So the term still has a clear positive meaning. ‘Darwinist’ does not unless one is talking about a very specific point in time and about a very specific view. Those who use ‘liberal’ pejoratively are clueless as to what the term actually means.

By: Michael Fugate

Michael Fugate — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:00:26 +0000

Don’t you think new atheist is becoming pejorative like darwinist and liberal now are?