"Athiests with Attitude" in The New Yorker Mag

riverc0il

www.newyorker.com/arts/cr..._gottlieb/

Saw this news item on the Infidels and thought it might make an interesting spring board for discussion. A issue I have taken while reading titles from the so called "New Atheists" such as Harris, Dawkins, etc. is the focus on organized religion (especially Christianity) and the focus on only negative aspects. While I am not defending religion (especially Christianity) nor am I suggesting I do not agree with much of what these authors have to say, I would suggest the antagonistic tone and occasional illogical arguments do more to fuel the fire of anti-secular sentiment than persuade doubters or skeptics of religion (e.g. those on the fence that would read such books with an open mind or even a disposition of "wanting" to be convinced).

Essentially, the antagonistic string of New Atheist titles succeed only in preaching to the proverbial choir. However, they also have succeeded in creating some discussion, media attention, and literature, so I guess an aggressive stance has created lots of positive issues. The ironic use of the word "militant" when paired up with Atheist is truly ironic in the above article; however, the author is on point when referring to the so called New Atheists as having “intolerant zeal.” I still have not read a better book on Atheism than David Eller's "Natural Atheism" and would love to see more books stick with arguing the logical and philosophical arguments and advocating the positive aspects rather than "attacking the opposition."

A lot of very religious people would agree that Christianity and other major organized religions have had bad times and done bad things and a lot of Christians and also would agree that the Bible is better read as folklore and fables than fact. Ranting and raving on the negative aspects of organized religion that many theologians would actually agree with does not do much to further the argument but rather opens up glaring omissions of detail and logic that can not be countered (such as the positive things organized religion have done). While it is important to highlight history and show some present influences and effects on dogmatic pockets of extremism, I think it is a subject best approached with a more respectful and conciliatory tone in which everyone could agree with the premise instead of a brutally hostile verbal attack that puts the faithful on the defensive instead of open minded approach to an honest recounting of issues with their faith.

So in summary, I think my point is that even as (perhaps especially as) a free thought community that has a major atheist leaning, it is important to confront the New Atheists and their writings with the same free thinking perspective we would approach any issue with and call out issues when we see glaring problems. We did this while discussing Sam Harris' "End of Faith." I was not participating in Dawkins "God Delusion" (I actually just finished the book) but would expect nothing less occurred during that discussion as well. What say everyone else to the "New Atheism?"


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT