A recent thread (Why Arrogant "New Atheists" Annoy Me) inspired the idea to start this one, and I credit that thread with starting an excellent and very interesting discussion despite disagreeing with its core point.
It seems to me that there's significant value in New Atheism and that its biggest flaws—such as sexism among the movement, sweeping generalizations that occur too often, and arrogance among some New Atheists—are neither unique to New Atheism nor criticized equally in the very same religions that New Atheists tend to criticize (Islam and Christianity, primarily).
Islamic and Christian apologists in particular, along with their sympathizers who seem too common at this point among the ranks of liberals, seem to be rather self-serving in their criticism of New Atheism for something like perceived arrogance or "bigotry" when the holy books they promote and/or defend contain verses that make the majority of prominent New Atheists' worst statements appear like an innocent pastime.
I don't recall the last time Richard Dawkins, for example, said that theists were going to suffer eternal punishment for their theism, or the last time Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or any other prominent New Atheist said something nearly as bigoted as some very common beliefs among Christian and Muslim communities (going into the details of which would easily require its own thread). I'm of the opinion that the extent to which such beliefs are common among many religious communities has desensitized people to them compared to the same issues when they arise in supposedly new movements, such as New Atheism.
Furthermore, a point I find important but too often overlooked in debates about New Atheism is that perceived "condescension" or "arrogance" in the way some arguments are made doesn't necessarily invalidate the core points of the arguments, nor does it mean that the perceived "condescension" isn't actually warranted in some cases.
For example, if someone supported the belief that gravity were a false theory and that "gravitationists" were engaged in some conspiracy theory to advance an anti-truth agenda, would condescension directed at them really be unwarranted? And more importantly, would it discredit the argument that such a belief would be intellectually bankrupt and indeed ridiculous to the point of verging on acceptance of fairy tales?
Yet seemingly because of the extent to which certain religions commonly inspire things like creationism, homophobia, sexism, and violence, vocal critics of those same religions are more widely vilified and demonized than the extremely numerous advocates and preachers of said religions. Imagine if, say, Richard Dawkins said something like this statement from Pope Francis:
(Source.)
And this is relatively mild compared to support for violence against homosexuals, of which there is no shortage among conservative Christian and Islamic circles. The above is not from an unofficially declared "horseman" or "atheist leader" either; it's from a religious figure revered and officially recognized by tens of millions of people worldwide. This goes back to the point I made earlier about desensitization to such harmful beliefs when they are expressed by people in certain circles where these types of beliefs are neither new nor surprising.
While New Atheism has a number of issues that are too problematic for any movement, much less one that prides itself on promotion of reason, a lot of the criticism of the movement strikes me as disproportionate, self-serving, selective, or otherwise biased in a way stemming from a reaction to the fact that it criticizes religious beliefs and not simply out of supporting tolerance or opposing bigotry, inaccurate generalizations, etc.
It says a lot when fundamentalist Christians of all people attack New Atheism for "bigotry" and overlook or defend their own bigotry, or when liberal ideologues and obscurantists dismiss New Atheists for X or Y issue and then turn around and be apologetic toward religious communities that harbor and sometimes even promote X or Y issue. Such inconsistency is, in my opinion, indicative of ideological bias and selectivity rather than concern for any desirable qualities.
Ultimately, I think the vocal criticism of religion that New Atheism is known for is something that many communities and societies need more of, and my criticism of New Atheism for the issues it has doesn't change my mind on this at all even though I find them disappointing and akin to a noticeable smudge on a beautiful painting.
I would like to hear what others here think, especially since this thread was inspired by another one. Also, sorry for the long OP; I view long OPs as the lesser evil compared to leaving out details that I find to be particularly relevant to the topic.
It seems to me that there's significant value in New Atheism and that its biggest flaws—such as sexism among the movement, sweeping generalizations that occur too often, and arrogance among some New Atheists—are neither unique to New Atheism nor criticized equally in the very same religions that New Atheists tend to criticize (Islam and Christianity, primarily).
Islamic and Christian apologists in particular, along with their sympathizers who seem too common at this point among the ranks of liberals, seem to be rather self-serving in their criticism of New Atheism for something like perceived arrogance or "bigotry" when the holy books they promote and/or defend contain verses that make the majority of prominent New Atheists' worst statements appear like an innocent pastime.
I don't recall the last time Richard Dawkins, for example, said that theists were going to suffer eternal punishment for their theism, or the last time Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or any other prominent New Atheist said something nearly as bigoted as some very common beliefs among Christian and Muslim communities (going into the details of which would easily require its own thread). I'm of the opinion that the extent to which such beliefs are common among many religious communities has desensitized people to them compared to the same issues when they arise in supposedly new movements, such as New Atheism.
Furthermore, a point I find important but too often overlooked in debates about New Atheism is that perceived "condescension" or "arrogance" in the way some arguments are made doesn't necessarily invalidate the core points of the arguments, nor does it mean that the perceived "condescension" isn't actually warranted in some cases.
For example, if someone supported the belief that gravity were a false theory and that "gravitationists" were engaged in some conspiracy theory to advance an anti-truth agenda, would condescension directed at them really be unwarranted? And more importantly, would it discredit the argument that such a belief would be intellectually bankrupt and indeed ridiculous to the point of verging on acceptance of fairy tales?
Yet seemingly because of the extent to which certain religions commonly inspire things like creationism, homophobia, sexism, and violence, vocal critics of those same religions are more widely vilified and demonized than the extremely numerous advocates and preachers of said religions. Imagine if, say, Richard Dawkins said something like this statement from Pope Francis:
(Source.)
And this is relatively mild compared to support for violence against homosexuals, of which there is no shortage among conservative Christian and Islamic circles. The above is not from an unofficially declared "horseman" or "atheist leader" either; it's from a religious figure revered and officially recognized by tens of millions of people worldwide. This goes back to the point I made earlier about desensitization to such harmful beliefs when they are expressed by people in certain circles where these types of beliefs are neither new nor surprising.
While New Atheism has a number of issues that are too problematic for any movement, much less one that prides itself on promotion of reason, a lot of the criticism of the movement strikes me as disproportionate, self-serving, selective, or otherwise biased in a way stemming from a reaction to the fact that it criticizes religious beliefs and not simply out of supporting tolerance or opposing bigotry, inaccurate generalizations, etc.
It says a lot when fundamentalist Christians of all people attack New Atheism for "bigotry" and overlook or defend their own bigotry, or when liberal ideologues and obscurantists dismiss New Atheists for X or Y issue and then turn around and be apologetic toward religious communities that harbor and sometimes even promote X or Y issue. Such inconsistency is, in my opinion, indicative of ideological bias and selectivity rather than concern for any desirable qualities.
Ultimately, I think the vocal criticism of religion that New Atheism is known for is something that many communities and societies need more of, and my criticism of New Atheism for the issues it has doesn't change my mind on this at all even though I find them disappointing and akin to a noticeable smudge on a beautiful painting.
I would like to hear what others here think, especially since this thread was inspired by another one. Also, sorry for the long OP; I view long OPs as the lesser evil compared to leaving out details that I find to be particularly relevant to the topic.
