As if their philosophical stance hadn’t been around for millennia, the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and more popularly Ricky Gervais are thought to be pioneers of non-belief.
New Atheists, the name given to this irreligious bunch, was coined in a 2006 issue of Wired Magazine. Appearing in an article titled “The Church of Non-Believers,” the name has come to refer to a loose connection of people who don’t believe in God and don’t think you should believe in him either.
But if New Atheists can’t be characterized with philosophical novelty what makes an atheist a New Atheist?
The answer you would probably get is that it relies on scientific rather than philosophical argument. Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist who sometimes delves in to the world of metaphysics, might be inclined to give that answer.
“Although atheism might have been logically tenable before [Charles] Darwin,” he wrote in The Blind Watchmaker. “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
In Dawkins’ eyes, while atheism was a viable philosophical stance before Darwin, it has become more certain after him.
New Atheists like Dawkins have capitalized on the divergence of science from philosophy, but this departure is not to their credit. There’s no novelty there.
Long before Wired Magazine, or Dawkins, Immanuel Kant asserted metaphysics’ futility in answering humanity’s questions. Kant also declared, much like New Atheists today, that science or empirical evidence does not support the existence of a god. Whether or not you agree with Kant, he gets the credit not New Atheism.
What defines a New Atheist? I think it’s a reliance on provocation, militancy and organization that rivals that of Catholic Church.
“The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers,” wrote Wolf in 2006. “They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil.”
Fast-forward from 2006 to 2011 and you’ll realize why Gervais ended the Golden Globes by thanking God for making him an atheist. Gervais was trying to be offensive.
Not every atheist is like Gervais and Dawkins, though. Not every atheist is going to call you a dumbass for believing in God. Atheism and disbelief in organized religion do not have to go hand in hand with being a douche bag. Yet the likes of Dawkins and Gervais make it seem almost necessary.
One visit to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science web page and you’ll see the organized pretentiousness I’m talking about: Self-gratifying pictures of Dawkins staring off in to space, a convert’s corner for newly proselytized atheists, a unique religious symbol and a tag-line that implies belief in a god is not “clear thinking.”
If previous atheist movements were supposed to stand for philosophical freedom and tolerance, the 21st century’s atheist movement is most certainly far from that.
Gervais can’t be prosecuted for what he said, but it should be understood that his actions and the actions of New Atheists are no different than any other claims of religious superiority.
Atheism doesn’t make you smarter than theism. New Atheists should not act like it does.
Zien Halwani is a junior philosophy major and the assistant city editor for the Daily 49er.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
