The New Atheism[s]Personal reflections by John Wilkins

What is Atheism?

Personal position: practical atheist and philosophical agnostic

Historically, atheism is “not of an approved religion”

Privative atheism: not-theism (the broad sense)

NOT “there is a god”

Positive atheism: no-theos-ism (the narrow sense)

“There is NOT-god”

Philosophically: primarily about knowledge

What is the New Atheism?

Doctrines of New AtheismSame as the old atheism, but primarily social

Often conflates broad with narrow versions, however, unlike Russell’s version

Is “scientistic” (positivist)

Called “militant” and”fundamentalist” by religious critics to make it a parallel with religion

Me: NAism is not like a religion intellectually, but it is socially, or tries to be

Accommodationism

The new atheism is generally exclusivist:

One cannot rationally believe in religion and science simultaneously

One does not need to debate religion, only show that science fails to support it (scientism)

Those who assert that the religious can be scientifically literate are of the “Chamberlain School of Evolution” (NOMA)

Agnostics are “namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters”, “cowards”, and lack commitment (mischaracterisation of agnosticism)

Seem to think that accommodationism is the view that science can be tailored to suit religion; in fact we argue the exact opposite: religion has to come to terms with actual science (as it always has)

Elevatorgate

Rebecca Watson (“skepchick”) at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin June 2011

Approached at 4am in an elevator by a convention attendee for coffee in his room

Gave a mild mannered online video asking skeptic men to show a little sensitivity, as she felt sexualised and threatened

Response was appalling: attacks on her personality, calls for rape, even Richard Dawkins said he didn’t see the problem

Continues today, two years later

Who said what?

Here’s what Watson said:

“ Just a word to the wise here, guys. Don’t do that. I don’t know how else to explain how this makes me very uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out: I was a single women in foreign country in a hotel elevator with you, just you, and I—don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.”

Who said what?Here’s Dawkins’ response:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Who said what?Comments include:

“The whiny little girl who complained about the man in the elevator needs to get a taste of real life. She needs to be slapped into reality. Send the snot to the Middle East and make her live the life of a Muslim woman for a year or two. Maybe that will make a real woman of the spoiled bitch.”

She should be in fear of being raped and then she’d really have something to complain about

Etc.

It’s fairly clear that new atheism is not immune from standard behaviours of humans, including privilege

Tribalism

Need for a nonreligious community, but how?

Can you based a community on what the people aren’t?

Costly signalling hypothesis

Marketing campaigns:

Skeptics: been around since 500BCE or so

Humanists: been around since 1500 or so

Brights: Dawkins’ attempt to rebrand skepticism and atheism

Atheism Plus (new New Atheists): “plus social responsibility”

Conclusion: Positivism reduxNew atheism is basically Comtean positivism

History is progressive, and there are winners and losers

Anything that isn’t science is nonsense

Religion is unmitigated evil (Comte would have disagreed)

Need for community based on positive values, not negative denials

Links

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

http://www.the-brights.net/

http://atheismplus.com/

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/09/why-atheism-plus-is-perceived-as.html

My posts:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/08/01/what-is-atheism/

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/12/30/atheism-and-agnosticism-again/

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/definitions-of-atheism/

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/07/atheism-agnosticism-and-theism-the-landscape-part-1/

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2007/06/what_is_an_agnostic_by_bertran/