New Atheists should tone it down
In this week’s “debate,” I found that Michael and I probably agree more than we disagree. I am aware that criticizing Richard Dawkins might not endear me so well to other members of the secular movement (with which I strongly identify). Indeed, Dawkins’ books The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion have become a sort of cause celebre among atheists and agnostics. While the scientific rigor of Dawkins’ work can hardly be questioned, his public persona has drawn particular scrutiny.
Perhaps the brand with which Dawkins is most closely associated is so-called “New Atheism,” a movement promulgated by such influential figures as Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens among other authors. New Atheists believe religion is something that should not be merely tolerated, but rather criticized and exposed for its supposed bald-faced lies.
The substance of these atheists’ arguments is not where I find particular fault; rather, I am more disturbed by the rhetoric and vitriol these authors use in making their points. Consider the title of Christopher Hitchens’ most famous book, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”. Authors like Dawkins and Hitchens seem to believe that religion is poisonous propaganda, meant to indoctrinate followers from a young age into a sort of unthought that prevents them from thinking critically.
Now, I certainly agree that quite a few nasty things in history can be attributed to the influence of religion. From the Crusades in the Middle Ages to the rampant sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church today, religious institutions have proven to be just as fallible as any other human-made organization. I want to make unequivocally clear that the atrocities perpetrated throughout history in the name of any deity disgust me to no end. However, the idea that religion is nothing more than a harmful propagandizing machine is simply foolish.
I was raised in the Catholic tradition. I received more than a few sacraments, I went to a religious high school and I studied quite a bit of the Bible. Even though I was not a fan of the way my high school taught history at certain points (I’m sorry Father Hough, but I don’t buy your excuses for Queen Mary), I do not think that my education harmed my ability to think critically. Moreover, my friends who do consider themselves religious are some of the most intelligent people I know. The idea that they are somehow intellectually deficient for looking at the world differently from me is hubristic.
One of the challenges of working in the secular community is striking a balance between criticizing religion and offering a viable alternative. As the president of SMU’s Secular Humanists, I have labored intensely to create a safe space for nonreligious students at the school who often feel out of place in a majority Christian campus. However, I also recognize that a community has to be based on more than simply bashing everyone who disagrees with us. As Dr. Darrel Ray, a prominent atheist author and psychologist, recently told the New York Times, the secular community “can’t just be talking about cowboy individualists anymore. We have to get out of this mentality we’ve been in over the past 50 years of just saying how stupid religion is. We have to create our own infrastructure.” I could not agree more.
Bub is a junior majoring in English, political science, and history.
New Atheists must stop the Hatred
One of the most influential forces in the growing trend of irreligion in the United States is the group known as the New Atheists. The infamous leaders of this group are the self-proclaimed four horsemen of the demise of religion (particularly Christianity and Islam). They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.
The four horsemen are now three after the death of Hitchens, which may seem like a good thing for Christians, as one-fourth of the apocalyptic tandem is gone, but I actually found Hitchens to be the most entertaining out of the four.
The purpose of this article is two-fold. First, I want to demonstrate why Richard Dawkins, along with the other New Atheists, is terrible for the climate in which atheist/theist dialogue can take place. Second, I want to address the ways in which we might engage one another over issues of faith without devolving into hatred.
Richard Dawkins was once an evolutionary biologist, but I do not believe we can call him that any longer. Dawkins has become demagogue, trading reason for vitriol and the cooperative scientific venture for egocentricity. Despite his abrasive rhetoric (just go to YouTube and watch the spittle fly), it is his lack of interest in reason (which he claims to advocate) that is the most worrisome for dialogue.
Because of his notoriety, Dawkins is the face of atheism to the public. That means people of all creeds and backgrounds will view him as the primary disseminator of arguments for atheism. However, this bodes ill for both religious and irreligious alike. If Dawkins’ name is synonymous with atheism, then what Dawkins does is irrevocably tied to public perceptions of atheism (just as fundamentalist religious figures are used to characterize the entirety of a religion). Dawkins has no interest in convincing you by traditional means. Instead, he is just going to steamroll you with hatred and rhetoric until you either crumble or jump on the bandwagon.
Neither of these options is terribly productive. It does not mean that Dawkins’ position is better reasoned or even comprehensible. Instead, non-atheists assume that all atheists are firebrands on a witch-hunt. Likewise, atheists are not equipped with the ability to sustain debates over the merits of religion since their high priest is not giving them arguments at all.
Instead, calling religion a cop-out without ever explaining why is the typical argument we see from Dawkins. Religion is all fairy tales and nothing more. Except this is quite a disservice to the majority of the world who actually do adhere to an organized faith tradition.
Furthermore, religion is, apparently, the root of evil and war, which is not a particularly unique statement from Dawkins, but instead is an argument rehashed by all of the New Atheists.
However, Dawkins fails to recognize the evils done in the name of secular states throughout the 20th century. He also fails to recognize the evils done by secular governments by coopting religion. His insistent projection of the state-church distinction upon all of history is not only anachronistic but also sloppy. The line between religion and politics is hard to find and at times one has used the other.
I hope you are starting to see why this kind of rhetoric (not reason) truly does break down dialogue. Instead, we should be having conversations about the merits of religions, the terrible things done in the name of religion, and sincerely accept that while we may hate the ideas of another person, those ideas are not the person. Everyone deserves charity in these discussions, but I doubt that altruism would interest Dawkins.
Reasoned arguments are the common currency of debate, and I suggest that we exercise reason to talk to one another in order to avoid hateful rhetoric parading as reason. We can start by simply asking each other what we believe and why. Probe in order to learn first and not to destroy.
One must clarify the others argument, position, use of terms, etc. in order to get a firm grasp on the argument. Healthy questions, not condescending questions, are important, not only to challenge but to clarify. Whether theists or atheists have hurt you, not all of them are the same. In fact, many are quite congenial people willing to engage others on a personal level. If we get outs
ide of our own bounds and really seek to understand, we might find that peaceful relations are possible instead of browbeating each other endlessly with no results.
Dearman is a junior majoring in political science and philosophy.
