The Old New Atheism
In 1986, Roberty Morey published The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom. He lamented at “the crazy sixties” and the rise of humanism and secularism. In Chapter 3, “The New Atheism,” he wrote:
Militancy is the difference between [historical atheism] and the modern movement of “anti-theism.” The atheists of the old school… felt that if people were foolish enough to believe in religion, that was their problem…
The situation abruptly changed after Hegel (1770-1831). Atheists became anti-theists as they were now actively “against” God… [they] wished to destroy all faith, love, and obedience directed to Him… God had to be pushed aside in order for man to be free to be his own god.
Morey’s book is a typical anti-atheist screed which pulls out all the usual tricks. It shifts the burden of proof to the atheist, misrepresents atheistic arguments, pretends that crimes committed by atheists represent atheism, argues that secular attempts to keep government from encouraging a particular religion actually reduce religious freedom, and so on.
But nevermind Morey. What was this first New Atheism, the New Atheism of the 1970s and 80s? Here are a few of the atheistic books mentioned in Morey’s bibliography:
- Ethics Without God (1973) by Kai Nielsen.
- Critiques of God (1976) by Peter Angeles.
- Atheism: The Case Against God (1979) by George H. Smith.
- Free Inquiry magazine (since 1980)
- The Atheist Debater’s Handbook (1983) by B.C. Johnson.
- Biblical Errancy newsletter (since 1983) by Dennis McKinsey. [pdf of all issues]
So we’ve seen this all before, but the second New Atheism (Harris, Dawkins, etc.) has been way more successful.
My takeaway message is this: Keep talking about atheism. Keep writing about atheism. Come out of the closet. Show people that religious myths about atheists are malicious lies. And keep it up even when it seems like a superstitious world is not paying attention.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Luke, you have written alot of negative things about the New Atheists, but all of them have made some good contributions. I would like to see an entry about what the new atheist movement has done right. My particular favorites are (1) Dawkin’s books that explain complex evolution concepts (Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene, TGSOE), (2) Dennett’s call for a “breaking of the spell”, (3) Harris’ open engagement with religious people about the repercussions of faith, (4) Hitchen’s experience in totalitarian regimes, and (5) (if you count him) Onfray’s call for an Atheology. IntelligentDasein
What do you think this is … Fox news? Chuck
lol @ Chuck IntelligentDasein
Kai Nielsen’s and Peter Angeles’ books are hardly abrasive (I was lulled to sleep reading Angeles’ The Problem of God), George H. Smith a little more so, but only Dennis McKinsey can be considered as strongly anti-theistic in the Hitchensian mold. Qohelet
IntelligentDasein,
Yup, I’m working on something like that. lukeprog
Stuff this meme away in a news post, eh? I saw it.
Shhhhh.
We won’t tell. John W. Loftus
I find it interesting that the “trick” off attributing crimes committed by atheists to atheism is so abhorrent. I would agree with this, it’s completely invalid as an argument, and yet every time a Christian or a Muslim commits a crime, their faith is immediately responsible for their actions. Religion is rarely a reason for committing crime or immoral action, though it is often used to make those actions more palatable.
Take the Crusades. They were no more or less wrong than Genghis Khan raping and pillaging across the Middle East for plunder. Blaming religion for the Crusades is akin to blaming animal husbandry for the Golden Horde. They were united under a common banner, and targeted those who didn’t follow the same ideals. Race, religion, ethnicity, and political party are all just tools used by people to divide and conquer and seek power.
Blaming atheism for the actions of Mao or Stalin or Hitler is just as valid as blaming the actions of Constantine and the following emperors and popes on Christianity, and by just as valid, I mean not at all. Justus
Justus, for the most part, you are right. People at the end of the day responsible for their own actions. BUT when someone hates gay people or kills infidels because of divine sanction, it seems to be the religion that endorses those views. IntelligentDasein
Personally, I despise the New Atheism label. It presupposes, without evidence, that atheists were once content to live their own lives, keep their own counsel, and refrain from criticising religion altogether. That is patently false.
I could populate such a list with many, many more quotes. To suggest that Christianity, or religion in general, was once considered above criticism is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. So when ever I hear a person use the phrase “New Atheism” as a means of describing some sort of new phenomenon, I immediately know I can safely disregard that person as unserious and not worthy of debate. BruceH
Lest someone mis-interpret my comment, I should clarify that I am not criticising our esteemed blogger. At least, not for this post, in which he is entirely correct. My criticism is reserved for Robert Morey and others of his ilk. BruceH
Hey, i read an article on “unreasonable faith” and made my own http://allwetalkabout.blogspot.com/ under “Did The Internet Cause The New Athiests?”
Hope you want to network. send me a message/read the blog =) I think that’d be a good idea. KC