| 
|On Atheist “Extremism”
Over the past few years, atheism has become something of a social movement, motivated by the release of many popular books, movies, and other media on the subject. The movement has been branded the New Atheism. But as a result of this increasing social presence, many atheists and atheist groups are being attacked and criticized, and the most prevalent criticism is the charge that many atheists are too extreme. This criticism is often voiced in a number of ways, and these critics refer to atheists as “fundamentalist,” “militant,” “dogmatic,” “radical,” or “extremist.” In fact, the critique of the developing atheist movement as extremist is so common that it has even become an internalized dispute among nonbelievers; it certainly isn’t a criticism made solely by theists.
In essence, the criticism of the emerging atheist movement centers around the provocative nature of its figureheads. Dawkins, Hitchens, and various other prominent atheists are frequently criticized for being arrogant, rude, and dogmatic extremists, among other things. The New Atheism is seen as inflammatory and divisive, driving a wedge between atheists and more liberal theists who could potentially be sympathetic to the movement, and causing the atheists to become as reprehensible as the religious fundamentalists they despise. As a result, critics charge that the New Atheism will only become more militant and extreme, unable to support itself and ultimately failing without accomodating any sort of alliance with moderate theists.
This debate should seem familiar. In most social movements, factions are divided into “extremists” on one hand and “moderates” on the other. But what is being branded as “extremism,” “militance,” and “fundamentalism” in the New Atheist movement is hardly analogous to the extremism found in most other social movements. In Islam, for instance, the extremists talk of destroying infidels and western society, strap bombs to themselves, and fly planes into buildings. In Christianity, extremists and fundamentalists vilify homosexuals and the reproductive choices of women, often attempting to curtail their rights through legislation. In the civil rights movement, groups like the Black Panthers advocated and even practiced violence. Meanwhile, in the New Atheist movement at worst you might find Hitchens making a smug remark, and that is what constitutes “atheist fundamentalism” and “extremism” to so many critics of this movement.
Thus, with a little historical perspective, it becomes clear that what many call extremism or militance in the New Atheist movement is more akin to mild impoliteness. To try to portray atheists as extremists or fundamentalists in the usual sense is clearly misguided, as atheists are not advocating any sort of policy to discriminate against or harm others. To equate the New Atheism to the extremism in Christianity, Islam, or even the Civil Rights movement is tantamount to equating the indignity of not excusing a burp to an atrocity like flying a jet into a building or throwing a pipe bomb into an abortion clinic. Such criticisms are nothing more than empty rhetoric and they are based only on superficial similarities. For instance, atheists are frequently characterized as “fundamentalists” because they speak with just as much passion and just as much fervor as religious fundamentalists. They are “extremists” because they break social norms and question religion openly, just like a street preacher yelling about fire and brimstone. But these are benign and irrelevant similarities shared by the atheists and religious extremists. Having passion or even fervor for a subject is not necessarily negative, otherwise we’d be forced to see educators and teachers who care passionately about their jobs as vile, evil forces. And open criticism is certainly not negative, as it is a prerequisite for and the basis of any true democracy and open society. If one is prepared to call atheists “extremists” on the basis of such trivial similarities as their passion and fervor, then there is just as much reason to refer to civil rights advocates, including Martin Luther King Jr., as extremists. In fact, this line of reasoning also allows one to refer to jaywalkers as terrorists—after all, both jaywalkers and terrorists breathe oxygen and have noses and have committed a crime. The similarities between atheists and religious fundamentalists are just as benign. They are irrelevant to any claim of extremism, and calling the New Atheism extreme or fundamentalist is misleading given the usual connotations of these descriptors.
So when the negative connotations of words like “fundamentalist,” “extremist,” and “radical,” are removed and we examine the New Atheist movement objectively, it becomes clear that, at best, we can argue that perhaps the figureheads of the movement are a bit snide and rude. Whether they truly are rude is debatable, of course, but we can all certainly agree that such a criticism is rather trivial. And the fact that atheists may share this quality of rudeness with religious extremists is irrelevant, as well. The main problem that secularists have with religious fundamentalists isn’t that they are arrogant assholes; it’s that they try to legislate divisive acts of discrimination under the guise of “values.” The New Atheists, on the other hand, are not guilty of such intolerance and bigotry. New Atheists are not attempting to write legislation banning religion or infringing the rights of believers, nor are they engaging in any sort of arrogant dogmatism (Dawkins himself admits that he can’t be completely certain God does not exist). And theists do not have a legal or ethical right to have their beliefs sheltered from any sort of criticism. Regardless, the mockery of theists is often treated as somehow analogous to racism or homophobia, but it is clearly several orders of magnitude less problematic; mockery of a belief that is probably factually wrong is not even remotely equivalent to denying equal rights to gays and women. The New Atheists understand that theists have the right to believe in God, with the caveat that atheists in turn have the right to criticize these beliefs and believe otherwise.
So the term “extremist” in regards to atheism is clearly a misnomer. Nevertheless, religious people tend to view the New Atheists with suspicion and see them as angry and off-putting. The point still stands that the New Atheism may fail from a pragmatic perspective because it drives away potential support from nonfundamentalist religious moderates. However, it is important to note that the New Atheism is not concerned merely with effecting social change. The New Atheism also emphasizes skeptical, scientific thinking; these values are what make the New Atheism “new.” Thus, the New Atheists are not of the nihilistic, existentialist variety prevalent decades ago with the ascent of continental French philosophy; the New Atheists are secularists, skeptics, and scientists. This atheism is the product of a fallibilist, scientific epistemology that emphasizes evidence. Because of this, the New Atheists are also members of the wider skeptical community. They rail against the idols of the right (fundamentalist religion) as well as the idols of the left (alternative medicine, “spiritual” religion, conspiracy theories, postmodernism, etc.). The old atheism had previously been oversaturated with postmodernism and continental philosophy, represented by philosophers like Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre. In contrast, the New Atheism is represented by scientists and those more in tune with the analytical/pragmaticist tradition in philosophy, as evidenced by the fact that the “four horsemen” of New Atheism are Daniel Dennett (an American philosopher), Richard Dawkins (a scientist), Christopher Hitchens (a journalist), and Sam Harris (currently seeking a doctorate in neuroscience). Not a Frenchman to be found!
Because the pursuit of truth and the use of a scientific style of inquiry drive the New Atheism, moderate theists are not sought after as allies. The type of society the New Atheists are attempting to create is one in which people engage in free inquiry devoid of dogmatism and based on evidence. We must change the way people think about the world before the movement can actively effect change for the social position of atheists and secularists. It is true that the New Atheists could crawl to religious moderates for help in raising the social status of atheists, but this would only serve to legitimatize the same flawed type of faith-based reasoning that gives rise to religious fundamentalism in the first place. The New Atheists criticize religious extremism not simply for being extreme and violent, for sometimes extremism and violence can be justified; rather, religious extremism is also criticized on the grounds that it has no basis in any sort of evidence or sound reasoning. And such an evidence-based, epistemological critique of religious extremism is just as applicable to the faith-based reasoning of religious moderates. In the end, legitimizing the faith-based thinking of religious moderates wouldn’t change the intellectual culture, which is what must be changed to truly pave the way for the social change atheist’s desire. A society reasonable enough to see that faith is not a virtue, that beliefs and social policy should be based on evidence and reasoning rather than dogmatism and holy books, would clearly ensure the rights of atheists—and at the same time the rights of countless others that suffer under the plight of religious “values,” from oppressed homosexuals to burka-laden women. The emerging atheist movement doesn’t just want acceptance of atheism; it wants to create a society in which the citizens are scientifically literate critical thinkers. It therefore does not matter that religious moderates reject the violence and bigotry of religious extremism, because they reject extremism for all the wrong reasons—namely, as a result of their faith.
As an analogy, suppose that a mathematician lived in a society in which many people came to the wrong conclusions through faulty calculation whereas others came to correct conclusions by using the same faulty calculations through sheer luck. If the mathematician were trying to promote mathematical literacy, she would not align herself with anyone that taught improper calculations, even if they happened to arrive at the correct conclusion; rather, she would cry out against both groups who use the improper calculations, advocating the teaching of mathematical axioms and the use of calculations based on an understanding of the underlying mathematics. The mathematician would realize that supporting those who came to the correct conclusions in spite of using flawed calculations is no foundation for the future of mathematics, because if the justifications and calculations are flawed, the future generations would be susceptible to the misunderstandings and errors that plague the community emphasizing the incorrect answers. Likewise, religious moderates are not allies of the New Atheism merely because they share the same ethical or political views, because their justifications are really no different in epistemological quality from those of the extremists, being rooted in faith and dogmatism rather than evidence. Simply because they are the enemies of our enemy does not make them our friends.
With that said, however, it certainly doesn’t seem true that the alienating effects of the New Atheism have led to the demise of atheist social movements. On the contrary, in the years since the publication of the various New Atheist books, so often called shrill and dogmatic, I’ve seen atheist groups become more active and mobilized. Atheist groups are no longer composed solely of old men, but many in the younger generation are joining such groups—and even women, too. In the past decade, more and more people have become willing to identify themselves as atheists, in large part because of the New Atheist movement and the encouragement of people like Richard Dawkins.
Clearly, to call the New Atheists fundamentalist or militant is misguided and wrong, given a little historical perspective. Such remarks are only exagerrated, misguided attempts to characterize atheists as rude. And maybe the wider society does see the atheist movement as rude and uncouth, but that is no criticism of its message, which encourages scientific literacy, social recognition of nonbelievers, and secular ethics. The New Atheism is not concerned with appeasing the hurt feelings of religious moderates, who don’t like to hear their beliefs challenged, but with constructing a society in which free inquiry (even into religion) is tolerated and accepted, and in which atheists can be treated as equals. Ultimately whether the New Atheists are truly rude or not is quite irrelevant. We are concerned with things of greater importance. But seeing as how atheists are still frequently cited as people incapable of moral behavior, unsuitable for political office, and unwilling to defend our country, it seems clear that, frankly, we have a lot of good reason to be rude. When religious extremists elsewhere are murdering and oppressing, I’ll gladly accept the designation of “rude” for loudly criticizing these atrocities. Consider me an atheist extremist.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:06 AM
Excellent article. As a non-believer (don’t like the word a-theist) my intent is to confront i-diocy where I find it, whether new age or religious fundamentalism. Thinking critically takes effort. “Rude” is the word used by the sleepy to describe those who ask them to wake up.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:08 AM
Hear hear!
I refuse to lay down with the moderate religious majority, because they are the power base for the extreme religious minority.
I, too, am proud to be an atheist extremist.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:34 AM
I’d like to preface this by saying that I used to be an atheist of the more idealistic variety, but have since drifted more into a “live and let live” category, where I’ve been focusing more on combating the effects of religious belief rather than religious belief itself (although, naturally, faith is still at the heart of the issue). Pragmatically speaking, I’ve almost come around to thinking it might be more beneficial to the group as a whole (which it most certainly is not), to work on cleaning up our image if we ever want our core ideas (that faith is, by definition, contrary to critical thinking) to have a real impact on the culture at large. I certainly think there’s room for both (both being the New Atheists, and the more acquiescent ‘humanist’ variety of atheism), as all movements certainly have and perhaps need the push and the pull to make an impact on society.
My question is whether religions liberals are necessarily motivated by faith in their actions (particularly those of the most liberal variety who reject the divinity of Jesus and treat their religion as more of a philosophy and a community than a faith-based entity). I’m sure they wouldn’t agree that faith is, in and of itself, an inhibitor to critical thinking, but perhaps it isn’t a bad idea for atheists to reach out to these types. Again, I don’t think atheists will come together as a whole, there will always be tension between the more vocal and more appeasing factions, but I no longer see this as so negative (except when those within the movement (aka Greg Epstein) are so intent on forming these connections that they’ll do so at the expense of the New Atheists — that pisses me off.)
Forgive this long, rambling response — my thought-train seems to have completely derailed. But fantastic post, nonetheless. I think this is the most articulate response I’ve read to the critique leveled far too often by members of our own “team” that the New Atheists are doing more harm than good.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:42 AM
S, I completely agree that there is a place for the more aquiescent types of atheist. The only issue I take with the more humanistic types of atheists is that they seem to legitimize the critiques heard by the religious (that atheists are “intolerant” or “extreme”, words that normally mean “repressive” or “dangerous” but in this case only “disagreeable” or “rude”). It is important that we recognize these are not legitimate criticisms of the movement, and are in fact ad hominen attacks and mischaracterizations. The same sort of silly arguments can be seen across the board of skeptical thinking. If you criticize homeopathy, UFO abduction, etc., you are called “intolerant” and “close-minded” and “mean” for daring to argue against a certain belief. It’s the ultimate shield from criticism—paint your enemy as a bigot. In that sense, I find the humanistic atheists harmful to the cause for embracing this line of reasoning as if it isn’t a logical fallacy and as if it weren’t a horrid mischaracterization. You call someone a bigot because you find them merely rude and then hope the other connotations of bigotry (hatred of others, a desire to oppress others, racism, etc.) are assumed once the label takes hold.
However, I agree that religious liberals are not primarily motivated by faith in their actions. The problem isn’t that they are motivated by faith, but that they still talk of faith as if it is a positive value and a legitimate way of knowing about the world. Scientists like Francis Collins, who do good science but occasionally dive off the deep end into crazy theological nonsense, are not bad people out to destroy atheists. And atheists should accept their help if they wish to fight against the intolerance faced by atheists and others as a result of religious oppression. But these religious liberals should not expect atheists to thereby refrain from criticizing their own religious views, as the criticism of fundamentalism on epistemological grounds is just as applicable to religious liberalism. If this alienates them and they remove their support, that’s a sad but necessary outcome. Ultimately, if we are honest with ourselves, the moderates of the religious world are just as kooky as the fundamentalists—just not as dangerous—but regardless our criticisms apply just as well to them. We critique violence not on the basis that violence is universally wrong—because violence can be justified—but on the basis that violence motivated by factually incorrect or unreasonable ideas is wrong. This is not to say, of course, that religious violence is not motivated by other factors much of the time (political or otherwise), but removing an unnecessary and irrational religious justification from the long litany of silly justifications for violence is certainly a step in the right direction.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Maia, if a few requirements can be met, perhaps you’d take pleasure in defining yourself as a fellow “bright.” =]
Cheers to the author, btw; excellent article.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:18 PM
If the New Atheist movement means more people hearing about factual, evidence-based alternatives to traditional myths and it provokes them to think, it can only be a good thing.
If atheist extremism means Dawkins or Hitchens upsetting someone who is not used to having their mythological beliefs questioned, all the better.
The existence of any or all deities is either true or not true. While such a large proportion of our planet are being misinformed and accept myths unquestioningly as the truth, the voice of reason is not shouting loud enough.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Maia, check my website link.
“Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.” - George Monbiot
May 26th, 2009 at 6:54 AM
Cisco Rey: WTF is a bright? Some new label the atheists have dreamed up, no doubt. Unfortunately, instead of using first order logic, humans like to play the binary game, labelling things this or that.
Engineer Poet. Are you on Twitter? My username: theadividual
May 26th, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Nah, I’m not on Twitter. I don’t have time for another protocol and I’m neglecting my web obligations enough as it is. Sorry!
I just thought the Monbiot was apropos.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:22 AM
To Saint Gasoline,
I appreciate the article a lot, but your missing one vital element of perspective; Why the religious moderates and extremists alike fear athiesm. You say that Atheists desire and are fighting for a society in which everything even religion itself can be questioned (which I do), but that is overly idealistic. The problem is that in a society as such, religion ceases to exist. Religion could not tolerate the continual barrage of skepticism, and people would no longer want to be believers. In fact that is why its religious people fight for every inch of ground the atheists gain. It ends the era of self-attributed meaning in the universe that just happens to answer all our questions. Another problem is that many people find it much easier to answer these questions with faith right now. Atheism seems less appealing if you dont like to think.
But again, thank you so much for the article. I like this site so much, I have told a few of my buddies.
May 30th, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Wonderful article, SG. I did your philosophy quiz on OK Cupid and I had this burning intuition that your intellectualism might in fact far outweigh your fart jokes. So I investigated further…and I find I’m right.
Anyway, it was a brilliant read. I would send it off to several relatives of mine but I don’t think they have the intelligence or stamina to digest it properly, and I fear that may be doing injustice to your brilliant work.
True quality. I will definitely be keeping in touch with your work.
May 31st, 2009 at 7:08 PM
My friend, you seem to be misapplying the word fundamentalism.
A Fundamentalist, is one who strictly adheres to any set of basic ideas or principles. In my opinion, it is not that atheists are extreme that is the problem, it is that they are ignorant.
The problem with atheism is that its followers do not adhere to its lofty goals of objective, rational reasoning. If this was false, than the author certainly would not have been able to group “alternative medicine, “spiritual” religion, conspiracy theories, and postmodernism.”
First off, alternative medicine may not be universally accepted by the scientific community, but therapy such as acupuncture or physiotherapy does wonders on pinpointing the underlying causes of human suffering, and does provide relief to those who practice it. Just because a healing technique focuses on Why, and not How, does not mean it should be totally disregarded, let alone grouped together with conspiracy theories.
When you have a broken arm, you go to the doctors. When you have muscle or tissue damage, it is much more effective to use medical practices that speeds the bodies healing processes instead of simply numbing it and letting time take its course.
Secondly, Atheism has a major fallacy in its particualr doctrine.
Human existence is not entirely rational.
Scientific research is an important method to understanding and categorizing our world. However, human beings are emotional creatures, and do not understand the world in terms of black and white.
Although logic is cold and rational, it is through artistic expression, metaphysical inquiry, and coming to terms with the irrationality of existence that we learn to understand the subtle shades of grey of human expirence, and the unanswerable questions that are persuasive through our lives. Abstract and intangible emotional experience is as important to a human beings development and understanding of the world as logic is. For a human being to understand morality is very important, but for them to truly feel that they should be moral, is essential.
Science and art, both struggle to understand our world. To place logic on a pedestal, above subtle and subjective understandings of our world, is to misunderstand humanities struggle.
Yes, we need to shy away from the dark ignorance of religious fundamentalism. However, to take the quality of a sub-group - religious nuts, and apply it to an entire group - the religious community, is a logical fallacy that any “rational” atheist should shudder at.
Of course, those who take religious texts literally cause untold amount of harm to the world. But what atheists fail to realize, is that not every person who is religious fails under this category. Eastern religion, speaks of a never-ending void that all things spring out of and fall into, but does not speak of a personal creator. Buddhism, does not focus on creation at all, but rather the eternal suffering of existence and the choice to understand and shy away from experience.
Further more, If “New Age” Atheism is rational and objective, than I fear for the scientific and logical community. To understand the major shortcoming of mainstream organized religion is essential. To totally disregard any exploration into human spirituality because of the perversion and empty rituals that the organized religion has forced onto the masses is fatal.
The reason people dislike atheists, is not always because they feel their believes are threatened. The smug, all knowing smile of someone who is so wise that they can laugh in the face of someone who has the audacity to claim that god exists, will never totally understand the sweet irony in their own neurotic inability to grasp the possibility of a light at the end of the tunnel.
Certainly, there is no conclusive proof that a personal god, or some creative force, exists. However, there is no conclusive proof that it doesn’t. To laugh and disregard human spirituality is to use the same closed minded logic as any fundamentalist christian.
The only sane conclusion is doubt. Through subjective experience, an individual will come to suspect of being part of a greater force, or the lack of one. To conclude that you are right beyond a shadow of a doubt, is to fall into delusion.
The arrogance of the non-believer is almost as funny as the arrogance of the other.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Mad Hatter, your comment strikes me as strange, because it is a string of strawmen which can be readily rebutted simply by reading the original post.
For one, I never claimed that science is the only way of knowing. It is rather obvious that science doesn’t tell us about various sorts of value judgments. Science can explain why our brains are wired to desire certain values, for instance, but it doesn’t make those value judgments for us, that much is obvious.
Second, your charge that atheists don’t distinguish between differing types of theists is sheer nonsense. In my own post, I repeatedly make the distinction between liberal, “moderate” theism and extremist or fundamentalist theism. Clearly, the distinction between the two is made.
When you say that atheists “totally disregard” religion, as well, you are wrong. Many atheists are the ones doing the most prominent research on the psychology behind religion, for instance. Atheists are interested in why people believe in spiritual things for very obvious reasons.
Finally, you say that atheists “conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt” that there is no God. This is also sheer nonsense. My own post characterizes the New Atheism movement as one that embraces science, and what makes the method of science so successful is its fallibilism. That is, it is successful because it doesn’t seek absolute certainty, but instead continually questions and revises its conclusions. At best, an atheist of this stripe can say he is relatively sure God does not exist, but he cannot say this with absolute certainty, as you assert. This, too, is addressed in my post above, and the fact that you make such claims leaves me wondering if you have even bothered to read it.
Atheism doesn’t require conclusive proof that God does not exist. As you said, “The only sane conclusion is doubt,” and that is precisely what atheism is–doubt that God exists. In the absence of evidence where we would expect evidence, of course, the doubt can grow all the stronger, which is certainly the case with God’s existence.
As for your claims regarding alternative medicine, I won’t use too much detail here, but suffice to say MOST alternative medicine modalities are complete bunk, and studies show it (e.g., homeopathy, therapeutic touch, ear candling, intercessory prayer). Acupuncture has a few studies for a few problems that seem to show it works, but when these studies are examined closely the claims for acupuncture fall apart. As a recent example, one study claimed to have found acupuncture useful for headache, when in reality it performed just as well as the PLACEBO (i.e., the sham acupuncture). They interepreted this as showing that the placebo is just as effective as acupuncture, but the correct interpretation in placebo trials (as it is with any non-CAM modality), is that the intervention does not work. One of these days I’ll have to go more into detail on acupuncture, because many people seem to think the science overwhelmingly proves that it works, when in reality the data is not nearly so clear.