I got to thinking that we haven't heard much from Richard Dawkins lately, so I googled some question like, "What's Richard Dawkins been doing," and Google handed me a bunch of articles discussing the "Death of New Atheism." A horrifying thought, until I noticed that all these articles were from Christian sites. None the less, there hasn't been much written about atheism as of late. Hitchens died of course, and he caught a lot of attention and was a bear-cat at debating. Sam Harris has been quiet, and his last book skirted around seeking out his own spirituality. I found it short and not particularly interesting, although others might like it better.
But I'm closing in on my point... finally. What is the new atheism? Wiki even briefly mentions it, but mostly just noted the main spokesmen around which the new atheism revolved, but it didn't actually say what it was. This confirmed my own bias. A while back atheists forums were bombarded by angry theists decrying the "new atheism," and I was put to wondering what new atheism was. Atheism is a simple concept. It's straight forward and clear. There have always been atheists. It' not like it has been invented only recently by some cult leader with a monstrous gun collection and a picture of Adolph Hitler on his wall.
The only thing that was marginally new was that there was a popular market for books about atheism from current authors. I say marginally new, because atheist writers have been with us for generations. I sensed that Christians had become triggered by more atheists declaring their views openly. I don't think atheists coined a new term, but I could be wrong, and I don't think they did much more that open the closet door a little bit more for people to realize that we are about. And to many Christians this was alarming and "new."
So here we are, atheists passing the time of day and living out our lives, and Christians declared a "New Atheism", a new more evil threat to their special-ness, and 10 years later, they now declare new atheism dead. Clearly a great victory for God. Christians of the highest moral standards identified a new evil and killed it in short order. Praise be to Jesus.
Meanwhile, I'm going to mow my lawn, something I enjoy very much in my later years on my riding lawn mower, and I'll pretend that atheism is still a thing practiced by many of my friends. Well, they don't really practice atheism. None that I know of recite a creed and promise to remain atheists until they die. I have no plans of reverting back to the old atheism, but then I never felt like there was much new in "new" atheism anyway.
It's been a while, but at the time, "New" Atheism was associated with a more strident and outspoken tone - not merely eschewing religion but criticizing it openly with no punches pulled. In particular, echoing Dawkins' rejection of non-overlapping magisteria (the idea, proposed by Gould, that religion and science operate in two different and non-overlapping spheres - science in facts, religion in values)
Imo, the "New" part is best exemplified in the fact that a book entitled The God Delusion was published by a reputable publisher - Bantham books.
In contrast, "Old" Atheists may be respectful or accommodating towards religion and relatively tolerant of religious fundamentalism, while "New" Atheists are not.
Alternatively, you could make a decent case that New Atheism is entirely a media-manufactured term, beginning with the 2006 Wired article. Rather glaringly, New Atheism is used extensively in a flurry of articles in those years - deployed mainly as a pejorative - and they never seem to define what they're talking about.
"New Atheism" died the same death as "Tea Party" and "Gamergate." The issues are still around but the catchy media labels are now dated.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 09, 2020, 10:02:23 PM
It's been a while, but at the time, "New" Atheism was associated with a more strident and outspoken tone - not merely eschewing religion but criticizing it openly with no punches pulled. In particular, echoing Dawkins' rejection of non-overlapping magisteria (the idea, proposed by Gould, that religion and science operate in two different and non-overlapping spheres - science in facts, religion in values)
Imo, the "New" part is best exemplified in the fact that a book entitled The God Delusion was published by a reputable publisher - Bantham books.
In contrast, "Old" Atheists may be respectful or accommodating towards religion and relatively tolerant of religious fundamentalism, while "New" Atheists are not.
Granted respected spokespeople speaking out all together in numbers of maybe 10 or so may have been a change, although I don't know if they felt what they were doing was new. I've recognized my atheism for 25 years, and that recognition became "new" for me the day I came to my senses. With that recognition I also felt a deep disdain toward the bullshit that I had tried so hard to cling to and defend before I admitted the truth about myself. When I started reading Dawkins and the others, their contempt for religion was nothing new at all to me as a relative newcomer. It just seemed like part of the turf. Perhaps atheists before that time felt no contempt for the scam. I can't say. But it's hard for me to imagine that those feelings were not always there for others. Being a former Christian, although doubtful, may have made it different for me. No one likes admitting they were defrauded by snake oil salesmen, even if the salesmen believed in their own snake oil.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 09, 2020, 10:59:19 PM
"New Atheism" died the same death as "Tea Party" and "Gamergate." The issues are still around but the catchy media labels are now dated.
Perhaps without the media talking about it, Christians feel like the perceived threat is gone, so we don't have them stopping by to tell us the new atheism is a terrible mistake, and we need to get back to holding our opinions to ourselves.
Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2020, 11:24:05 PM
Perhaps without the media talking about it, Christians feel like the perceived threat is gone, so we don't have them stopping by to tell us the new atheism is a terrible mistake, and we need to get back to holding our opinions to ourselves.
With everything going on in the world, I think atheism has dropped down on the list of the average Christian's anxieties.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 09, 2020, 10:06:53 PM
Alternatively, you could make a decent case that New Atheism is entirely a media-manufactured term, beginning with the 2006 Wired article. Rather glaringly, New Atheism is used extensively in a flurry of articles in those years - deployed mainly as a pejorative - and they never seem to define what they're talking about.
I did think the term was used as a pejorative, and that Christians much preferred to live with the "old" atheism. I don't know if the media meant it as a pejorative, but even if the media didn't define it clearly, whatever was happening with atheism at the time, seemed like it raised the hackles of theists. Maybe it was just that we got too much attention.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 09, 2020, 11:30:03 PM
With everything going on in the world, I think atheism has dropped down on the list of the average Christian's anxieties.
Yeah, the media is going to focus on those other "new" things, and as we know, they like to milk those things that excite anxieties, and theists are as excitable as anyone else, maybe even more so. The new atheism, just like the old atheism becomes but a minor trigger.
This was at a time in which both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism were very much in the zeitgeist (and the headlines). Obviously, they're both still very much around, but it really hit fever pitch in the 2000s and the US in particular had something akin to a revival of religion shortly after 9/11.
This was an age in which creationism intelligent design was a serious issue and I distinctly remember having heated talks with relatives, disputing whether "both sides deserve to be taught" and "both sides have their merit". I recall taking a stand - a more or less universal opinion now, but not very popular at the time - that this is superstitious hokum posing as science, lacks merit entirely, and that it's infuriating that it is even considered as belonging in a science classroom.
Given the societal and especially political inroads fundamentalism made in such a short time, there was a significant secular pushback. Granted, there have been atheists firebrands before, but this felt different somehow. A more no-holds-barred approach that didn't let well-meaning religious people off the hook and didn't give a deference to religion for grandma's sake. It's difficult to explain.
Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2020, 11:37:40 PM
Yeah, the media is going to focus on those other "new" things, and as we know, they like to milk those things that excite anxieties, and theists are as excitable as anyone else, maybe even more so. The new atheism, just like the old atheism becomes but a minor trigger.
Speaking of triggers, I would like to know how Christians felt about federal police in riot gear firing gas canisters and grenades containing rubber pellets to scatter the largely peaceful, and presumably predominantly Christian, demonstrators to clear the way for Trump, surrounded by the nation’s top law enforcement and military leaders, to walk to the historic St. John’s Church for a three-minute photo op holding a Bible. If I was a Christian, I imagine I would have some feelings about that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 09, 2020, 11:43:17 PM
Granted, there have been atheists firebrands before, but this felt different somehow. A more no-holds-barred approach that didn't let well-meaning religious people off the hook and didn't give a deference to religion for grandma's sake. It's difficult to explain.
Actually, that explains it quite well, at least in how I perceived it. The debate was no longer devoted to only heated exchanges with hard core fundamentalists. The issue also addressed the mainstream as in: "You may mean well. You may be a nice person, but you are supporting archaic superstitions that are counter productive to the human growth and development of our species. You are supporting related ideologies that seek to dumb down our children, even if you don't do that yourself." I'm paraphrasing there. I can't remember specifically, but I remember feeling like the mainstream was being addressed, and that they were hearing. And shortly after, there was a drop in church enrollment. A correlation, but not necessarily cause and effect.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 09, 2020, 11:55:21 PM
Speaking of triggers, I would like to know how Christians felt about federal police in riot gear firing gas canisters and grenades containing rubber pellets to scatter the largely peaceful, and presumably predominantly Christian, demonstrators to clear the way for Trump, surrounded by the nation’s top law enforcement and military leaders, to walk to the historic St. John’s Church for a three-minute photo op holding a Bible. If I was a Christian, I imagine I would have some feelings about that.
I did see some reader's comments after some articles that seemed to be highly critical. They sounded like they were coming from Christians, but I couldn't be sure. I don't spend a lot of time on those comments, but I don't get the impression that there was overwhelming support for Trump's decision.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 09, 2020, 11:55:21 PM
Speaking of triggers, I would like to know how Christians felt about federal police in riot gear firing gas canisters and grenades containing rubber pellets to scatter the largely peaceful, and presumably predominantly Christian, demonstrators to clear the way for Trump, surrounded by the nation’s top law enforcement and military leaders, to walk to the historic St. John’s Church for a three-minute photo op holding a Bible. If I was a Christian, I imagine I would have some feelings about that.
Most Christians support Trump, they don't support criminals and communists. The Christians I know are pacifist, not revolutionaries.
The New Atheists: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens
Sam Harris - 53 years old, moved on to debating Jordan Peterson
Richard Dawkins - 79 years old, tired out
Christopher Hitchens - passed away, totally conservative in his later politics, because he hated Muslims.
Old posters don't realize that is 15 years ago.
Quote from: Baruch on June 10, 2020, 12:15:13 AM
Most Christians support Trump...
Christians do have a thing for authoritarian, angry father figures whose "love" somehow ends up resulting in suffering.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 10, 2020, 12:22:42 AM
Christians do have a thing for authoritarian, angry father figures whose "love" somehow ends up resulting in suffering.
Spare the tazer, spoil the protestor ;-))
Atheism by itself is not an -ism at all, is it? Not gonna define myself in terms of religion-isms. 'Belief' is worthless therefore everybody is either agnostic, misled or is a liar.
New atheism seems to be anti-theism. Hitchens was so entertaining while shredding any theist stupid enough to take him on.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 09, 2020, 11:55:21 PM
Speaking of triggers, I would like to know how Christians felt about federal police in riot gear firing gas canisters and grenades containing rubber pellets to scatter the largely peaceful, and presumably predominantly Christian, demonstrators to clear the way for Trump, surrounded by the nation’s top law enforcement and military leaders, to walk to the historic St. John’s Church for a three-minute photo op holding a Bible. If I was a Christian, I imagine I would have some feelings about that.
Run the Jewels have two fucking brilliant lines about that on their new album, on the track "Walking in the Snow"...
Quote from: El-PPseudo-Christians, y'all indifferent, kids in prisons ain't a sin? Shit
If even one scrap of what Jesus taught connected, you'd feel different.
Quote from: Killer MikeAll of us serve the same masters, all of us nothin' but slaves
Never forget in the story of Jesus, the hero was killed by the state
Quote from: Cassia on June 10, 2020, 02:20:29 AM
Atheism by itself is not an -ism at all, is it? Not gonna define myself in terms of religion-isms.
Atheism is an odd duck in that regard. It would exist with or without theism, but it would not have a name if theism did not exist. Instead of "atheist" you would simply be a "person." I've tried to think of how many other things have names that are defined as what they are not. I can't think of any at this moment. What is an "ism" anyway. I'd never thought about it before. Google says this:
Quote
-ism. a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc.
I have to admit that half way through that definition I got lost, and I just said, "Oh, the Hell with it." But someone else may find it interesting.
New atheism and its corollary militant atheism were invented by Christian apologia. I reckon it was an attempt in discrediting atheism as ideological transgressors of theological "thought" or something. I never personally adopted a label other than agnostic apostate atheist. I don't care what my rivals call me, I define myself in my own environment, and only as a response to theism in this regard.
A few things to note of the idea of new atheism. Granted that Islamic radicals raised the fears of main stream Xian’s. Happening parallel to that was a sudden rise in the call for “intelligent designâ€, add a relatively new and boisterous social media and suddenly voices seldom heard started responding to intolerance and the new maybe pseudo xian fervor and we got Dawkins and Hitch and several others even Tyson at the mic along with several more outspoken people of “fame†such as Gervais being far more outspoken and we bathed in three years of fierce debating along with a very fine realization among younger people how religion is trying to circumvent education.
It did seem to die quickly as perhaps one can only beat the proverbial horse to its conclusion. I think far more people have quietly agreed that the scientist are right and have stopped waisting time in useless debates. We shall see for certain when intelligent design pops back up. It will again, it is far easier to produce the next generation of believers since they have far more available and one or twenty will not escape the grip of religion, whereas scientist would rather do their work and not get entangled in debates that are fruitless. I am certain they will rise again when the call goes out for god to find his way back into the school that somehow man excommunicated him from. Silly gods, men seemed so puny.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 10, 2020, 09:36:28 AM
New atheism and its corollary militant atheism were invented by Christian apologia. I reckon it was an attempt in discrediting atheism as ideological transgressors of theological "thought" or something.
That certainly seemed like the intention among Christians that showed up on atheist forums. Although, I didn't pick that up from mainstream media. I think the media just recognized it as a phenomenon, and needed a name so they could talk about it. I don't know who coined the term, but I think it was more important to theists, who felt the most threatened by the outspokenness of the whole thing. Mostly it seems to me like atheism got repackaged and passed off as something different.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 10, 2020, 09:36:28 AM
I never personally adopted a label other than agnostic apostate atheist. I don't care what my rivals call me, I define myself in my own environment, and only as a response to theism in this regard.
"Atheist" was good enough for me. When I came to terms with it in myself, it was a perfect description of who I was, but this is not as true as it once was because some dictionaries, maybe most, are beginning to define atheism as anti-theism, and an atheist is now a person who "knows there is no God." This whole change in definitions seems driven by theistic hubris. Since they know there is a god, an atheist must know that there is no god. I lack the necessary hubris to be an atheist under that limiting definition.
So here I am with no word to describe myself. I think I'm supposed to call myself an agnostic, and while that works, it fails to describe the essence of my lack of belief, which is the most important part. Agnostic describes only the part of me that does not know, and completely misses the point that I have no belief. It bugs the Hell out of me. Fucking theists are defining me the way they want me to be, and not understanding who I really am. Ok, I'm not as upset as that sounds. I'm exaggerating my response just to try and make a point. I don't really care what theists think. It's like trying to teach my dog to speak English. An impossible task. He will never speak English, so I just accept it.
Quote from: SGOS on June 10, 2020, 09:35:16 AM
Atheism is an odd duck in that regard. It would exist with or without theism, but it would not have a name if theism did not exist. Instead of "atheist" you would simply be a "person." I've tried to think of how many other things have names that are defined as what they are not. I can't think of any at this moment. What is an "ism" anyway. I'd never thought about it before. Google says this:I have to admit that half way through that definition I got lost, and I just said, "Oh, the Hell with it." But someone else may find it interesting.
The definition implies "action". Sitting on your ass and posting isn't an -ism, unless asshole-ism is a word ;-)
Quote from: aitm on June 10, 2020, 10:02:35 AM
It did seem to die quickly as perhaps one can only beat the proverbial horse to its conclusion. I think far more people have quietly agreed that the scientist are right and have stopped waisting time in useless debates. We shall see for certain when intelligent design pops back up. It will again.
As atheism exists only in relation to theism, creationism (specifically "creation science") exists only in relation to science. Neither can exist without the other. I don't want to start another pointless debate, but just to be a little Devil, who started the whole frakus? Scientists or theists? If scientists are to blame, I don't think it was intentional. The problem is that science often leads to places we don't want to be. It was much easier when the church had cornered the market on all truth. Easier, but dumber. Reality gets in the way of so many of our goals. It's the reason, I can't play pro basketball.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 10, 2020, 09:36:28 AM
New atheism and its corollary militant atheism were invented by Christian apologia. I reckon it was an attempt in discrediting atheism as ideological transgressors of theological "thought" or something. I never personally adopted a label other than agnostic apostate atheist. I don't care what my rivals call me, I define myself in my own environment, and only as a response to theism in this regard.
Atheism was originally discredited by association with treason, heresy and revolution. As an epistemology, it doesn't have that implication. But human beings are combinations of multiple -isms. In some circles, "deconstructionism" is not politic free, it is associated with the "march thru the institutions" by the Cultural Marxists ... so it isn't just epistemology.
Socrates in the City: Conversations on "Life, God, and Other Small Topics" by Eric Metaxas … with YouTube channel. Discusses the old New Atheism still. Some of the guests (it is a kind of interview show) are old enough to remember, just like posters here. I don't think Milllenials or Z-Gen talk about this. Old Atheism = Lawrence Welk, New Atheism = Rock & Roll.
A problem for those of you who eschew jargon, who don't think philosophy is worth your time either ... you are talking about Me-ism. Which didn't start with the Boomers! in a world where there is only the Church, Western atheism must be anti-church. In a world with no science, it wasn't possible to be anti-science, but it is possible today. Me-ism isn't necessarily sociopathic, though it can be. Otherwise it is covered by "narcissism" ;-))
Quote from: SGOS on June 10, 2020, 10:08:04 AM
That certainly seemed like the intention among Christians that showed up on atheist forums. Although, I didn't pick that up from mainstream media. I think the media just recognized it as a phenomenon, and needed a name so they could talk about it. I don't know who coined the term, but I think it was more important to theists, who felt the most threatened by the outspokenness of the whole thing. Mostly it seems to me like atheism got repackaged and passed off as something different.
"Atheist" was good enough for me. When I came to terms with it in myself, it was a perfect description of who I was, but this is not as true as it once was because some dictionaries, maybe most, are beginning to define atheism as anti-theism, and an atheist is now a person who "knows there is no God." This whole change in definitions seems driven by theistic hubris. Since they know there is a god, an atheist must know that there is no god. I lack the necessary hubris to be an atheist under that limiting definition.
So here I am with no word to describe myself. I think I'm supposed to call myself an agnostic, and while that works, it fails to describe the essence of my lack of belief, which is the most important part. Agnostic describes only the part of me that does not know, and completely misses the point that I have no belief. It bugs the Hell out of me. Fucking theists are defining me the way they want me to be, and not understanding who I really am. Ok, I'm not as upset as that sounds. I'm exaggerating my response just to try and make a point. I don't really care what theists think. It's like trying to teach my dog to speak English. An impossible task. He will never speak English, so I just accept it.
Your dog understand English better than a theist understands facts or critical thinking. I don't mind the word atheist; but you are correct, the theists named it that. I do often use the term 'nonbeliever' instead of or in combination with 'atheist'. A nonbelieving atheist is pretty close to what I am.
Quote from: SGOS on June 10, 2020, 10:26:13 AM
As atheism exists only in relation to theism, creationism (specifically "creation science") exists only in relation to science.
Creationism definitely existed before science. It was one of those just-so stories that filled the gaps in our knowledge - especially our lack of knowledge about the distant past and how the current species came to be. It wasn't until science came into the picture and people literally started digging into the past that modern creationism came to be - a religious psuedoscience that tried to imitate science in all ways except methodology while concluding that the religious just-so story is true. It's an insulting sham.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 10, 2020, 02:08:23 PM
Creationism definitely existed before science. It was one of those just-so stories that filled the gaps in our knowledge - especially our lack of knowledge about the distant past and how the current species came to be.
This is why I added 'specifically "creation science"' as an afterthought when I realized the problem. At that point, I should have just back spaced over creationism, and taken it out. Christians may have just renamed creationism as "creation science" but it's just a name for essentially the same thing. Sometimes I have wondered if they actually though renaming it was going to work.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 10, 2020, 02:08:23 PM
- a religious psuedoscience that tried to imitate science in all ways except methodology
In other words "tried to imitate science in all ways except science." I wonder if that glaring nuance was lost on creationists. "Glaring nuance" may be an oxymoron. I hope so, because it's what I intended.