Neo-atheism and missing the point

April 6, 2007

E. J. Dionne much of what I’ve said here about “neo-atheism” — not just the idea that there is no god, but that religion is primarily destructive force in society. He’s particularly critical of Neo-atheism’s attack on the moderate and liberal religious communities.

The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious “moderates” who don’t fit their stereotypes.

In his bracing polemic “The End of Faith,” Harris is candid in asserting that “religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each one of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.” [ Answers To the Atheists ]

Atrios has made a couple of comments on this column which help demonstrate Dionne’s assertion that the neo-atheists have difficulty with belief-systems that don’t fit in their stereotype:

Still, the “dogmatism” Dionne discusses isn’t limited to those normally characterized as fundamentalists or the Christian Right, it’s there for even the new more lovable public face of Christianity, Rick Warren, who doesn’t believe in evolution and believes Jews (and, presumably, most of the rest of the world) are going to Hell. [ Level Playing Field ]

I’m not familiar with Rick Warren, but in my book that suggests Mr. Warren is well on the conservative side of the playing field — denying evolution and suggesting people go to hell are rather conservative positions. Atrios says the topic bores him, so I’m sure he’s not likely to investigate the writings of Bruce Bawer or John Shelby Spong. And he’s certainly not going to stumble onto universalism.

Atrios starts that post saying:

I don’t know why EJ Dionne gets upset when a couple of atheists start talking about their atheism with the level of certainty that religious people do on a regular basis. [ Level Playing Field ]

Then he clarifies in a later post:

Responding to a couple of comments in the thread below, I wasn’t accusing Dionne of being hostile to atheists or atheism. I just think that he’s reacting to “ornery” or “uppity” atheists for engaging in the kind of discourse which is commonplace among believers. [ More Atheists ]

This is where he — and, I think, a lot of other atheists — miss the point. Perhaps he perceives this as a double standard, but the argument the liberal religious make against neo-atheism is precisely the same as the argument they make against fundamentalism. And the argument Dionne cites Harris making against liberal religion is remarkably similar to the argument being made by fundamentalists: we “imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each one of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.”

We do actually believe that. Atrios might not be able to get this, as bored as he is with the subject, but we are critical of neo-atheism precisely because it’s fanaticism and intolerance dressed up in science’s clothing — because in character, if not in content, it is fundamentalism.

Posted in Religion, War God