Shooting more blanks at the "New Atheists"

Wow. The friendly-fire snipes against the "New Atheists" are becoming a full-on fusillade. But... Why are the riled-up gunslingers pointing their peashooters in every cock-eyed direction, and loading up with nothing more than those kiddie strips of paper caps?

Seriously. Take a read of the latest, and see if you can figure out: Where's the steak, cowboys?

Bored by own imagination

Casper Melville, editor of New Humanist magazine, is "bored by New Atheism". But after reading the piece, I don't see how; inventing "New Atheist" positions out of thin air seems a wonderfully creative pursuit. (It's got to be at least on par with macramé.)

Below are excerpts from Beyond New Atheism?. (That word "excerpt" is always cause for caution; please do read all of Mr Melville's article and lambast me if I've taken something out of context!)  

... irascible, rhetorically florid, sweeping, intellectually arrogant New Atheism certainly has its place – some arguments are just asking for it. Perhaps the classic New Atheist quote is Dawkins's response to those who accuse him of dismissing theology from a position of ignorance: "Look," he told Laurie Taylor, "somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So to me it is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology."

There is a crisp logic here. I agree with Dawkins. But in another interview, this time with a fierce critic of New Atheism, Terry Eagleton says: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." Put this way, Eagleton seems right. I agree with him, too.

Eagleton seems right indeed... if we conveniently forget that birds are demonstrably real, while Yahweh and Shiva and Xenu are not. Isn't that the entire gist of the matter?

I wonder what Eagleton – and Casper Melville – would point to as the reality of supernatural religious claims that Dawkins fails to understand. More importantly, how can Melville agree that Dawkins can't properly dismiss gods without meeting some standard of education in theology, barely one breath after agreeing that Dawkins can dismiss fairies without meeting some standard of education in fairy-ology?

Huh? Supernatural fairy claims can be summarily dismissed for lack of evidence, but supernatural god claims can't? Why?

Because entertainment value aside it is surely false, as well as politically unwise and, well, pretty impolite, to say that "all theology" is irrelevant (some of it is moral reasoning, isn't it?),

The "New Atheists" don't claim that. Shorthands in spoken discussion, like the single word "theology" or "religion", may be unavoidable, but speakers like Dawkins take care to clarify their definitions as they go. Dawkins, for example, repeatedly notes that as a collection of unsupported supernatural claims, theology is indeed the silly study of nothing; yet as the study of actual human belief systems, theology is not only a valid field of humanities but is something that should be taught in public schools!

Words like "theology" have more than one use. Mr Melville seems to be ignoring this fact, and most studiously so. The "New Atheists" he attacks don't ignore it.

still worse to say that "religion poisons everything",

The "New Atheists" don't claim that. Christopher Hitchens has very publicly stated that his book's subtitle was chosen by the publisher and is not to his liking. (Mr Melville forgot to mention that.) The "New Atheists" do not decry harmless aspects of religion – religion-inspired architecture, Christmas caroling (an activity Dawkins cheerfully admits to enjoying), the Islamic tenet of giving to the poor, and so on. I'd like to see Mr Melville or anyone provide evidence to the contrary.

or that without religion there would be no war,

The "New Atheists" do not make this claim. Or do you have evidence that says otherwise, Mr Melville?

or that bringing a child up within a faith is tantamount to child abuse, 

That speaks to a well-known point made by Dawkins. But "bringing up within a faith" is a vague bunch of words; Dawkins, to the contrary, is specific about his charge. From a 1996 speech to the American Humanist Association:   

In a 1995 issue of the Independent, one of London's leading newspapers, there was a photograph of a rather sweet and touching scene. It was Christmas time, and the picture showed three children dressed up as the three wise men for a nativity play. The accompanying story described one child as a Muslim, one as a Hindu, and one as a Christian. The supposedly sweet and touching point of the story was that they were all taking part in this Nativity play.

What is not sweet and touching is that these children were all four years old. How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist? Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican? There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?

It would be good of Mr Melville to address such specific points, not some vague "bringing up within a faith" (which could mean just about anything).

Back to Mr Melville's article:

or that moderate religious believers are worse than fundamentalists because they prepare the ground for extremism,

Worse than fundamentalists? What "New Atheist" said that, and when?

or that "all" religion is this, or that, or "all" faith is misguided,

Again, these are words with multiple meanings (or at least, multiple usages). Some people, for example, speak of both faith based on evidence and faith not based on evidence; others make "not based on evidence" part of the definition of faith. (See the above Dawkins speech for the latter.) The question is: What specific statements have "New Atheists" made about "all" religion or "all" faith that deserve Mr Melville's criticism? Alas, we're not told. 

or to suggest that those who believe in God are basically stupid, or that science, and only science, can answer our questions.

Again, this sounds very suspect. I've heard plenty of atheist scientists laugh at the idea that science can necessarily answer all our questions. Have any "New Atheists" really made such bold claims as charged here? If so, who and when?

Anyway, here's where we get to the punchline of the whole thing. Look back at the laughable caricature of "New Atheists" presented above, and get ready for this:

The picture of religion that emerges from New Atheism is a caricature and both misrepresents and underestimates its real character.

Ahem.

"Religion," Richard Norman writes "is a human creation … a mirror which humanity holds up to itself and in which it sees itself reflected. Human beings attribute to their gods all their own human qualities – cruelty revenge and hatred, but also love and compassion and mercy. That's why you can find a justification for anything, good or bad, in religion."

"New Atheist" Christopher Hitchens likes to point out that there is no justification for good found within religion that can't also be found outside of religion. While, conversely, there are all too many justifications for bad that can exist only within religion. Just think of the lives destroyed by punishment for the imaginary crimes of "heresy", "blasphemy", "apostasy", and so on.

That's a serious point about the problem of religion – which gets pointedly ignored here.  

... I have a more base reason for wanting to move beyond New Atheism. I'm bored, and I fear my readers are becoming so too.

As one of those readers, I concur: I'm terribly bored with the article too. It's very tiring to see people build imaginary straw caricatures of "New Atheists", then start shooting their cap guns every which way but at substantive issues. "New Atheists" aren't railing against Grandma reading the Bible, or the Church holding a bake sale, or Hindus throwing a harmless festival. They're railing against anti-science curriculum forced into schools, lavish state receptions for a Pope who enjoys inexplicable immunity to questioning over his role in shielding child rapists, religion-based discrimination against women and gays, the stoning of people accused of religious crimes, and other holy plagues. 

It might be that we will map out a new, specific, patient and subtle future for the God debate.

For what possible reason would Middle East executions for imaginary religious crimes, or child rapists shielded behind the "laws" of the Vatican, call for "patient and subtle" debate? The "God debate" is not some academic discussion of philosophical nothings; it encompasses damned serious real-world issues. Sharia law and religious immunity from rape prosecutions and denying women human rights. Real crimes with real victims, perpetrated in the name of imaginary beings. 

This ain't watercress sandwiches and genteel "First Cause" chats, Bub.

But let's be clear, no matter where we decide to go we wouldn't be where we are now if we hadn't had five good years of irascible, impatient, blunt, godless discourse – New Atheism – to leave behind.

Leave behind? Let's hope "New Atheism" is just getting started. 

"Fellow atheist" demands tolerance of the Pope

Not tolerance by the Pope. Tolerance of the Pointy-Hatted One. In We must let the Pope come and go in peace, Simon Heffer tells us:

As a baptised member of the Church of England who at an early age converted to atheism and stayed there, I find the visit of the Pope to this country means remarkably little to me. I am, however, dismayed by the aggression and militancy of some of my fellow atheists, who show a shocking intolerance of him and of his faith in the interests, it seems, of calling for more tolerance from the Catholic Church for homosexuals, abortionists and the promiscuous. If this is how they define live and let live, then we really are in a mess.

Mr Heffer goes on to offer considerable sympathy for the atheists' protests, and notes the many issues to which the Church must answer. That part I can agree with. He continues:

I can understand why this makes atheists angry. It makes many who believe in God angry, too. And I know the Pope has, both as pontiff and in previous roles in the hierarchy, been culpable, especially in the matter of child-molesting priests. But none of this merits the silly over-reaction by self-advertising unbelievers that has greeted his visit, and which has threatened to compromise our reputation as a civilised and hospitable country.

Huh? "Culpable in the matter of child-molesting priests." That doesn't merit a strong reaction? Why? If not a strong reaction to that, then to what?

The Pope has not come here on a mission of mass conversion of the heathen English and Scots. He has come, principally, to see his own followers. Why can't he, and they, simply be allowed to get on with it?

Because he's CULPABLE IN THE MATTER OF CHILD-MOLESTING PRIESTS. YOU JUST SAID THAT.

The Pontiff is also telling countless Africans at risk of AIDS to throw away their condoms, flat-out lying about the ghastly health risk of doing so. From there, the list of charges against the Pope just gets longer.

In a society like ours, faith should be a consideration, such as whether one takes sugar in one's tea. It is entirely a matter of private conscience and taste and of no consequence to anyone else.

The Pope is not accused of "faith". He's accused of CULPABILITY IN THE MATTER OF CHILD MOLESTATION. You yourself JUST SAID THAT. 

"A matter of private conscience"? CHILD RAPE???

Good Lord.

That all said... Is this article for real? Or is the fellow a prankster, tweaking atheist noses for fun while sneaking legitimate charges against the Church into the middle part of his article? 

I know nothing of the author, and am left a bit confused by what looks like a very confused piece. (It doesn't help that the writing style and tone, and even the author photo, reminds me of this movie review.)

If it's all a put-on, it was too subtle for me. Any thoughts, readers?

Anyway. To wrap things up: Looking at the two articles above, and the previous two, I have to ask: Am I blind? Amidst the strident denouncements and offended tones and flying chunks of strawman, I can't find a single specific complaint – a specific charge of hypocrisy or harm or just plain being wrong – made against the "New Atheists" and backed by evidence. 

Are the anti-"New Atheists" firing nothing but blanks? Or am I missing something substantive among all the loud and vague harumphings?