Atheism: Old and New

[Hutch Hogan]

This distinction is getting thrown around more and more by the weary apologist.  I was wondering if any nerdfighting philosophers have thoughts about what is new atheism, what is old atheism or whether there is much difference at all. 

[God ~blogs admin ~]

I hear the term now and again. I suppose it stands for the outspoken Atheist or non-theist side. But honestly, no matter what you call it. It boils down to the same pot in the end. 

[Hutch Hogan]

While I could see the term as to refer to atheist philosophers following the 9/11, I find that the term "New Atheist" is usually said with a great unsavouriness compared to the poorly defined "Old Philosophers".  The worst part of this being an out of hand dismissal for their arguments (see: Vertigo_One as an example). 

[Lori S.]

I disagree.  It's like saying that Christian fundamentalists and liberal Christians are the same, or that moderate Muslims and radical Islamists are the same.

But, I think that's the problem with New Atheism, actually--like all modern fundamentalisms, it rejects nuance.  It is wildly unconcerned with the differences, say, between a liberal Muslim living in Dearborn, MI and promoting religious tolerance and freedom, and a fundamentalist Muslim living in Iran and supporting theocracy.  It doesn't have time to concern itself with the difference between an Episcopalian who works for LGBT rights and immigration reform and a Southern Baptist who is lobbying to make abortion illegal.  It's too busy making sweeping generalizations, after all. 

I know an increasing number of atheists who do not want to identify as such, because atheism is increasingly come to be associated with "New Atheism," and they don't want to be associated with what they see as a narrow-minded, intolerant, pretty fundamentalist movement.  I find that really interesting, because I struggled for many, many years with identifying as a Christian, and generally didn't, because I didn't want to be associated with the kind of narrow-minded, intolerant, fundamentalist movement that people tend to think of when they hear "Christian."  Many of my atheist friends, who are generally accepting, tolerant, live-and-let-live people who have no beef with religions or religious people but just do not believe in God/god/gods themselves, find themselves having the same definitional struggle that more liberal Christians have had for a long time.

So I think they are VERY different pots, actually.  I would, frankly, say that many New Atheists have more in common with Christian fundamentalists, in terms of their understanding of religion and the world and people, than they do with live-and-let-live atheists.  And I'd say that liberal Christians have more in common with tolerant, open-minded, accepting atheists than they do with fundamentalist Christians.

I guess, for me, the question isn't "What do you believe?" but "How tightly do you hold your truth?  What do you do with your truth?"  And New Atheists, like Christian fundamentalists, tend to hold their truth very, very tightly, to assume it's self-evident and superior, and to want a world where everybody believed what they do. Other people, of all and no religions, hold their truth loosely, recognize and accept that other people of goodwill and intelligence with disagree and that's okay, and do not seek to create some utopia where everybody believes what they do.

[Abreo]

New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of 21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

 

Wikipedia apparently recognizes it as a thing. I guess old atheism is not giving a shit or something, I'm not sure. I think the Four Horsemen of New Atheism (Richard Dawkins is one) are a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands but I have no problems with arguing against religion, I just couldn't imagine devoting my life to making the same five arguments against it over and over again. 

 

When people first become atheists there is a rule in place that they must be as annoying as possible about it. I have never met someone who differs from this rule but I suppose they do exist. Still everyone spends a long period of time thinking about how there is no god like they just discovered something amazing and then later they calm down and become less radical about it. These four horsemen have never calmed down, they're like perpetual teenagers basically. 

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Well, if we take the debate between Stephen Fry, Hitchens, some Cardinal and the hag for the Tory party for example. The question was whether or not the Catholic church was a force for good, but the accusation could stand firm for most of the faiths out there. The battle over civil gay rights, lies being out by the pope and so on. Abuse and mental enslavement of women.

If these things weren't still on going, indeed they'd be wasting their time. But there needs to be that constant nackering. Perhaps their arguments need re-tuning but then someone could simply say faith isn't tuning its tune, why should they?

As for old Atheism. From what I've gathered, you're just to take the scraps that are afforded to you by the majority who believe, which sounds like a proper croc of shite to myself. 

[Abreo]

I've heard the debates they get lost in, most of them are petty and stupid. I've read some of their writings, once again petty and stupid. True they do mention the undeniable problems that persist in the world partly because they are ingrained in religious beliefs but that isn't the focal point of their war and hence I don't give a damn about them. 

I'm not even suggesting that all atheists should just keep quiet but I am saying that there's a such thing as focusing too much on one thing isn't there? I think the people normally tagged with New Atheism fall into this group. 

Its fine to tell people there's no god but it's not the cure for cancer if you get my symbolism.

[Hutch Hogan]

But does this vary from the philosophy of Voltaire or Epicurus, who are part of the Old Atheism?

 

Wikipedia apparently recognizes it as a thing. I guess old atheism is not giving a shit or something, I'm not sure. I think the Four Horsemen of New Atheism (Richard Dawkins is one) are a bunch of idiots with too much time on their hands but I have no problems with arguing against religion, I just couldn't imagine devoting my life to making the same five arguments against it over and over again. 

 I was the same way until I had actually taken the time to look into Dawkins and Hitchens.  
I'm no fan of Harris because I believe he undermines the atheist position through positing the existence of spirituality, though some atheists are not as stringent as I am I suppose. 

Its fine to tell people there's no god but it's not the cure for cancer if you get my symbolism.

I can see how Dawkins would see religion as a cancer of scientific learning considering how many people reject belief in something as basic as evolution (about 50% last I heard in the states, 40% in south korea, etc). 

[Abreo]

But does this vary from the philosophy of Voltaire or Epicurus, who are part of the Old Atheism?

 

Does it have to? Everything I've read about New Atheists sounds like Voltaire, just more hardcore and more intense. I think it's mostly just a word.

  I was the same way until I had actually taken the time to look into Dawkins and Hitchens.  

I'm no fan of Harris because I believe he undermines the atheist position through positing the existence of spirituality, though some atheists are not as stringent as I am I suppose. 

Hitchens is a little sob and Dawkins is more respectable than he is but I respect none of these people.

I can see how Dawkins would see religion as a cancer of scientific learning considering how many people reject belief in something as basic as evolution (about 50% last I heard in the states, 40% in south korea, etc). 

People don't like the new especially those who aren't used to it. Religion is a part of culture, the problem isn't religion it's culture and people being set in their ways. I'm not saying converting people doesn't do anything but I am saying it doesn't do anything that getting them to be more flexible and accepting of change wouldn't as well. In other words religion isn't the problem, people are the problem.

[Hutch Hogan]

Does it have to? Everything I've read about New Atheists sounds like Voltaire, just more hardcore and more intense. I think it's mostly just a word.

That is indeed what I'm getting at.  I don't think there is really much of a distinction between the philosophy of the "new" and "old".  

Hitchens is a little sob and Dawkins is more respectable than he is but I respect none of these people.

Hitchens is very abrasive and very condescending.  But I also recognize that he isn't a scientist, he does have a considerable amount of experience from his time as a journalist travelling to the war torn parts of the world and writing articles.  But as I said before, I find that Hitchens doesn't draw on science often, but instead focuses on morality and sectarian violence. 

 Religion is a part of culture, the problem isn't religion it's culture and people being set in their ways. I'm not saying converting people doesn't do anything but I am saying it doesn't do anything that getting them to be more flexible and accepting of change wouldn't as well. In other words religion isn't the problem, people are the problem.

I'm not sure if I agree or not.  I still see religion as some that is false, unnecessary and clutters knowledge for the people who are taught religion.  At the very least I'm willing to concede that the biggest problem for humanity is humans.  But I'm not willing to say that religion, itself, isn't a problem. 

[Abreo]

That is indeed what I'm getting at.  I don't think there is really much of a distinction between the philosophy of the "new" and "old".  

 

It's not significant I would agree. 

Hitchens is very abrasive and very condescending.  But I also recognize that he isn't a scientist, he does have a considerable amount of experience from his time as a journalist travelling to the war torn parts of the world and writing articles.  But as I said before, I find that Hitchens doesn't draw on science often, but instead focuses on morality and sectarian violence. 

 

There's abrasive and condescending and then there's one of the most intolerable people ever to be born. Huge difference. He could have solved all the world's problems and he'd still be awful. I'll admit I couldn't stand his personality enough to pay him tons of attention but from what I saw he was really unoriginal and unimpressive. I was surprised people paid him to act like a dick and say nothing new. Maybe he says some good stuff but I hate him so much I couldn't care.

I'm not sure if I agree or not.  I still see religion as some that is false, unnecessary and clutters knowledge for the people who are taught religion.  At the very least I'm willing to concede that the biggest problem for humanity is humans.  But I'm not willing to say that religion, itself, isn't a problem. 

It isn't. A belief in a deity dictates nothing about a person. I know some people who believe in God and they're basically like me but not an atheist. They just have a different outlook on life than one that someone who gets stuck in their ways would have. I will definitely agree that specific religions and specific religious beliefs can be very problematic but the act of having a god or being religious is such a vague thing that it means nothing.

[Hutch Hogan]

There's abrasive and condescending and then there's one of the most intolerable people ever to be born. Huge difference. He could have solved all the world's problems and he'd still be awful. I'll admit I couldn't stand his personality enough to pay him tons of attention but from what I saw he was really unoriginal and unimpressive. I was surprised people paid him to act like a dick and say nothing new. Maybe he says some good stuff but I hate him so much I couldn't care.

We can chalk this up to a difference of opinion.  It's not exactly a point worth much contention in this thread either way. 

It isn't. A belief in a deity dictates nothing about a person. I know some people who believe in God and they're basically like me but not an atheist.

The belief in a deity is a dictation about the person itself.  Though the type of deity says more about the person.  It can also describe a good deal of what philosophical lens a person views the world through.  Will this affect actions? Not for sure.  With the rise of less literal interpretations of spirituality and scriptures, we're see more progressive believers who focus less on the unsavoury bits of religion. 

I will definitely agree that specific religions and specific religious beliefs can be very problematic but the act of having a god or being religious is such a vague thing that it means nothing.

They just have a different outlook on life than one that someone who gets stuck in their ways would have. I will definitely agree that specific religions and specific religious beliefs can be very problematic but the act of having a god or being religious is such a vague thing that it means nothing.

Here I would mostly agree, though by going to the actual definition of atheism as a contention with theism, the belief in a theistic god as I view theism as something specifically problematic.  

But for other interpretations of god, pantheism, deism, spiritualism, etc. are not so problematic. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Many athiest scholars are really making masive facepalms over people like Dawkins, Hitchens et al, since most of their arguments had been countered by religious scholars, in some cases centuries earlier. New athiesm, as far as I can see it, is better nicknamed "popular athiesm". It offers very little in so far as "New" arguments are concerned. All it does is popularise the more simplisitic end of the wedge, the arguments along the lines of "I can't see God etc therefore he can't be real". There are also "new" athiests who seem to find it nessecary as a part of their argument to criticise various religious institutions, failing to understand that whether or not a church/mosque/synagogue/temple's occupants are always good and perfect people does in no way alter whether or not the god they worship exists.