Tagged: atheism

The A word

I’ve noticed a number of articles in popular journalistic outlets on the “New Atheism” or the “New Atheists” which is (or are) conceived as a “movement.” Usually, these pieces take a critical perspective, even pointing to the “violent extremism” within this alleged movement. In contrast, a new article, which is supportive of “New Atheism,” argues that



As the atheist community becomes larger and more diverse, attracting a broader range of people from different backgrounds, this is a natural direction for our activism to take. It’s also a step that both atheists and people who care about social justice should applaud, because our alliance makes both causes stronger. Our opposition is largely the same: the socially conservative faction, bolstered by religion.

That’s why the more that the atheist community moves beyond purely philosophical debates to embrace the practical pursuit of justice, the more we can establish a reputation for ourselves as a force for good in the world.

From a distance, and from a speculative position on the matter, I wonder over this argument because it takes for granted the general orientation of the critics of a “New Atheism,” which find it to be homologous to organized religion (i.e., as just another religion, albeit without god). Hence, a few responses:

(1) As long as a variety of medieval monotheisms promote killing in the name of god, I’d say that posing “theoretical questions” [sic] about god’s existence is a “practical” contribution to the “fight for justice,” just as empirically debunking the belief in white or masculine supremacy is a necessary component of anti-racist and feminist politics.

(2) This imagined “New Atheist” movement (rooted in the imagination of people like the author of this piece quoted above) usually boils down to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, whose books are apparently on the march.

The real movement is known by a simpler name: modernity.

(3) On the assumption that “New Atheism” or atheists in general are a “community” or “movement,” one must make a case that it/they actually comprise a “group.” So, for instance, three ways of categorizing an atheist group identity are possible:

Category A:
Is there an atheist catechism?
Is there something like an atheist conversion ritual?
Is there an atheist baptism?
Is there an atheist confirmation?
Is there an atheist bible?
Is there an atheist synod?
Do atheists carry identification cards?

Category B:
If the “hard” identifiers in category A aren’t appropriate, perhaps atheists are more like a “subculture”; similar to goths or hipsters, do atheists have an identifiable appearance (vampirish for goths; artistic tattoos, robust beards, and knit caps worn in any weather for hipsters) or lifestyle (The Cure on CDs for goths; Carsick Cars on vinyl for hipsters)? Do atheists follow particular bands? Is there an atheist fashionable “look” (“nogodcore” or “reasoncore”)? Do atheists tend to live in urban areas or are they “back to the land” folk? Do atheists tend to shop at Whole Foods or Kroger?

Category C:
Perhaps atheism is closer to a “preference,” one in a series of likes and dislikes an individual might hold (e.g., “I like unfiltered Camels and microbrews”; “I dislike modern dance and action films”).

If an atheist “group” can’t be defined by the “hard” identifiers from category A or the progressively more “soft” identifiers from categories B and C, what exactly is the sociological basis for the “groupness” of atheists?

Critics and proponents of the “New Atheism” would do well to sort out this question of “groupness” before assuming the existence of such a chimerical animal.

(4) To those who would point to the positive role religion plays in “progressive politics” (such as the Civil Rights Movement of yore), I would suggest some parsing. There are elements of Christianity in the USA that are associated with liberal and/or left wing politics. The difference is that liberal Christianity lends its religious resources to secular ends. In contrast, conservative American Christianists seek to destroy secularism (and modernity in general) and to institute their own particular brand of theocratic government.

Comment te dire adieu

Maureen Dowd’s 1098th column on the Clintons is a doozy.

Hillary’s inability to dispense with brass-knuckle, fanatical acolytes like Brock shows that she still has an insecure streak that requires Borgia-like blind loyalty, and can’t distinguish between the real vast right-wing conspiracy and the voices of legitimate concern.

Unfortunately, it is a variation of every column she’s written on the Clintons. But least we know the thoughts are hers alone (not borrowed from someone else).


Mr Netanyahu is apparently clueless about that fact that he’s being used by Mr Boehner, who is a risible failure as Speaker of the House of Representatives, mocked by conservatives and pitied by liberals who aren’t prone to slow down and stare at traffic accidents.



The problem with the New Republic article on the Chapel Hill murders is that it fails to mention any instances (empirical instances) of violent extremism among atheists other than the gun collector in North Carolina. Reference to books by Dawkins et. al and public opinion polling as a sign of extremism is specious. However, the title of the article is good click bait for the New Republic, which has undergone a massive editorial upheaval in recent months.


Marx’s line in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, “here the content exceeds the phrase,” seems to apply to the historical practice of Christianity in relation to the nice words about loving each other and one’s enemy. Both violence and charity have been equal parts of the very nature of Christianity for much of its history. Physical violence has been largely reined in in the post-Enlightenment era.