9/11 gave birth to aggressive, unapologetic `New Atheists'

I found this article by chance, while looking for news updates for atheism.


I thought it worth sharing not just because of the headline, but because of the masthead that appears at the on-line version of this Christian magazine.

 

The Christian Century

Thinking Critically. Living Faithfully.

 

 

Aug 27, 2011 by Kimberly Winston

(RNS) In September 2001, Sam Harris was an unknown doctoral student who didn't believe in God.

But after the World Trade Center crumbled on 9/11, he put his studies aside to write a book that became an instant best-seller -- and changed the way atheists, and perhaps Muslims, are perceived in this country.

Published in 2004, Harris's "The End of Faith" launched the so-called "New Atheist" movement, a make-no-apologies ideology that maintains that religion is not just flawed, but evil, and must be rejected.

 In the book, Harris frequently uses the image of a Muslim suicide bomber to highlight the dangers of religion, depicting Islam as a "cult of death" and a "machinery of intolerance and suicidal grandiosity." Within two years, Harris was joined on the best-seller list by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, who all took religion to task for most -- if not all -- of the world's ills.  (Full Article)

 

 

Views: 144

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on August 27, 2011 at 10:18pm
Yeah I see a problem with christians saying that they are thinking critically.  They are just trying to find excuses for why our numbers are growing.  I would take anything they say with a "grain of salt".
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on August 28, 2011 at 12:19am
Whether someone is "strident" or "accomodationist", we owe a lot to the forceful outspokenness of the 4 horsemen. I'm very grateful to them. We can't all make a living from our atheism, but we do have these examples to look to and learn from.
Permalink Reply by Trance Gemini on August 28, 2011 at 7:45am
9/11 had the effect of doing that to a lot of us. It did that to me as well.

The 4 Horsemen simply expressed what was already on the minds of atheists around the world.

That's why their books became best sellers and it's why the Anti-theist movement was born and is growing.
Permalink Reply by mojo5501 on August 28, 2011 at 10:01am

They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately," Kurtz told NPR in 2009. "Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."

 

That statement made me laugh: at least SOME of us are considered GOOD.  I think the term 'mean-spirited' is a funny term to use against the new atheists as a whole.  And using militant just makes us sound like angry troublemakers and publicity hounds.  It is also an attempt to trivialize the freethinking community...marginalize the 'crazies' to the borders of the community.

 

I have read some of the work by these '4 Horsemen' and they basically lay out very sensible arguments explaining why they've reached their conclusions.  They don't just do it to be 'meanies'.  I think that theists fear them because they shed light on the inconsistencies of religious thought and the unreasonable dogma that many people adhere to.  

 

(I think the term 'nonreligionists' has to be about the most clumsy word I'm ever come across...ha...right up there with nondenominationalists.  It does, however, distinguish between being 'anti' v 'non'.)

 

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on August 28, 2011 at 10:22am

What the Four Horsemen may have done, individually and collectively, is force those willing to actually read their handiwork to at least consider the other side of the coin of religion.  Religion as an entity was presupposed to be good; the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon provided a stark example of religion in a radically different light.

9/11 rubbed our noses in the extremism of islam, certainly, but the depredations of christianity have been around longer, and are easily as pernicious in their own right.  Dawkins and Dennett and Hitchens and Harris have brought insight and examination and analysis to bear, and as a result, more people are willing to cry out that "The Emperor Has No Clothes."  The contretemps between religion and reason is being brought to a head, not just by the Four Horsemen but by any of us who actively assert our atheism in the face of a religious majority.  If religion protests in response, we shouldn't be surprised, but their arguments are weak and, indeed, they may privately recognize the leading edge of their own demise and struggle against it.

The Horsemen were the forerunners of a new dialog which puts religion on the defensive ... a position religion is unused to and doesn't like very much ... and being based in irrationality, religion may react after that fashion.

Permalink Reply by mojo5501 on August 28, 2011 at 11:23am

Religion as an entity was presupposed to be good

 

Exactly....religion was the default setting.

 

One of my favorite quotes from Sam Harris is "Beliefs have geo-political consequences." (From his "End of Faith" lecture).  It has always been taboo to question religious people specifically and religion in general.  If this lack of questioning leads to a 'cover' for extreme fundamentalist literalism, the moderates do have to take some credit for the actions of the extremists...Christian, Islamic, etc.  Tolerating the intolerant is a bad idea.  It's not the responsibility for the atheists to take this issue to the table (our position is very well known), it's for the moderates in the religious groups to do so.  Control the deviant behavior of your own community so the rest of us can sleep at night! 

 

 

Permalink Reply by mojo5501 on August 29, 2011 at 8:43am
Exactly. Our growing 'aggressiveness' is a sign of feeling empowered to question the assumption that religious dogma is taking this country (world) in a better direction.  It is scary to think about the consequences after a worldview of Dominion theology takes root (see:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology ).  Theocracy is certainly something worth fighting against.  I think atheists have good reason to distrust fundamentalist motives in the public sphere. 
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on August 29, 2011 at 11:09pm
Actually, the "New Evangelical Christianity" is pretty much militant unapologetic aggressive, intolerant, I'm not sure about the other terms.  Some are murderous too.
Permalink Reply by Cheryl on August 31, 2011 at 7:34pm
I recently took an interest in my atheism and read books by the 4 authors.  I decided to come out as an atheist as a result, and reach out to join atheist organizations.  I came out to my fundamentalist mother, I felt I could stand up to her dogmatism now, and we repaired our estranged relationship.  The New Atheism has given me the confidence to speak out.  I can say that the New Atheists have changed my life for the better.  I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.  Christians are right to see the New Atheism as a threat.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service