From Nietzsche to Richard Dawkins: a brief history of modern atheism

[rug]

Updated by Brandon Ambrosino on July 20, 2014, 11:00 a.m. ET 

The number of atheists in the US has been on a steady incline over the years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2012, 2.4 percent of American adults said they were atheists, which was up from 1.6 percent in 2007. A recent poll conducted by WIN-Gallup noted a similar rise globally. One explanation for this increase, says Ryan Cragun, a sociologist of religion at the University of Tampa, might be the emergence of the New Atheists — a group of 21st-century atheist thinkers publishing popular books that argue against religion.

The New Atheists came to prominence in 2004 with the publication of Sam Harris' The End of Faith, a book that derided faith as "the devil's masterpiece." The book is purportedly an attack on religious fanaticism, but as reviews point out, it ends up being a full-frontal assault on all religious people, even moderate ones. Indeed, while writing a sympathetic review of the book, The Observer noted that Harris "too often allows anger … to color his tone." Nonetheless, the book spent over 30 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, where it peaked at number four. The market, it seemed, was ripe for screeds against religion. And over the next few years, several New Atheist books, all highly critical of religion, were published to popular acclaim, including Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great and Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Of course, popular acclaim is different than critical acclaim, and even more different than scholarly acclaim. Various scholars have pointed out that New Atheist critiques of religion fall short because they've misrepresented faith, caricatured believers, and engaged in the same fundamentalism they were allegedly impugning.

But Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists are just one kind of atheist; not all those who have denied God's existence over the years have done so in such a vituperative manner. Nor have all of them been as "intellectually lazy as Dawkins and his ilk," wrote Michael Robbins at Slate. As Robbins points out, the New Atheists don't seem particularly "bothered to familiarize themselves with the traditions they traduce" — traditions that include such intellectual giants as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, and Nietzsche, the last of whom being arguably one of history's most influential atheists, the one who codified the phrase "God is dead."

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5912283/from-nietzsche-to-richard-dawkins-a-brief-history-of-modern-atheism

[Tikki]

1. Wow this is rich, quote: The Observer noted that Harris "too often allows anger …to color his tone..

Yeah, like religion doesn't...

I don't believe in any god because I have no reason to or want to...

Tikki

[cbayer]

2. Does the fact that this is also true for religion make it any less true about Harris?

[Trajan]

3. You want to hate Sam Harris?

Nobody is stopping you ...

Have your fun ...

[cbayer]

6. Why would I want to hate Sam Harris?

I was just noting that although the member was correct, that doesn't make the observation about Harris less correct.

[Tikki]

4. Check out my sig line...goes 'round and round'..

I don't play that game...never had the need to...


Tikki

[cbayer]

5. Your sig line remains a mystery to me.

[Tikki]

7. An article was posted with a statement in it...I responded to that statement with my post..

You posted back an assumption on your part..

I won't go posting around and around on assumptions.

Tikki

[cbayer]

8. I looked up the lyrics to this song and they are as unclear to me as your posts here.

I am sure you are trying to say something, and it could be just me, but I can't figure out what it is you are trying to communicate.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Look at all them fucking assumptions.

Hell, I've never even read 'the end of faith'.

Show of hands, who has?

[mr blur]

11. I have.

It's not angry enough, if you ask me.

[Brettongarcia]

10. Rug: you recently asked which atheists are angry. Does this help answer your own question?

[rug]

12. No, I had asked EvolveorConvolve who he was speaking for, not who's angry.

Maybe he's still convolving an answer because I haven't seen one.

[cbayer]

13. Convolution can be a very, very difficult thing.

[Brettongarcia]

14. 1)Distinction Without a Difference; if an author speaks for angry atheists and we reveal some, then?

2) Many atheists here seemed to feel the author was speaking for them. While indeed, they have long evidenced anger.

So it's clear who the author was speaking for in general: Angry atheists ("atheist anger&quot . And furthermore, we have provided specific examples of such angry atheists.

So? Clearly Rug is just playing semantic games here. The way he always does when he knows he has lost a case.

Or is Rug willfully looking the other way? Hiding his head under the ... rug, when a point appears that he does not want to face?

That would be a typical example of psychological Denial.

[rug]

15. Then it's incumbent upon the speaker to identify his constituency and, more importantly,

his authority to do so.

Otherwise, one may conclude he's referring to imaginary friends.

As to your internet psychological diagnoses, you really don't want to go down that path.

[Brettongarcia]

16. But clearly he has many friends - defenders, even examples - here on DU.

So any attempt to suggest a speaker for "atheist anger" has no constituency, is self-evidently imaginary.

[rug]

17. In that case he should say he's speaking for his "defenders" on DU.

He didn't.

[Brettongarcia]

18. Who are the Angry Atheists? How much could our author say in a short article?

We can easily deduce what persons he had that in mind. 1) By submitting his post to the DU religion section, clearly the author did have THIS audience partially in mind; he meant to bolster the atheist side of this group. And had in mind speaking to and for them.

No doubt though, our author also had many other angry atheists in mind - who were too well known to bother mentioning. Any atheist here - and many believers too - would have some knowledge of many others who were angry. We've mentioned two major groups here, already. Aside from our present group, there are famously many 2) angry atheists like Dawkins. These you should know about. Then too I added, 3) communists were usually atheists.

It is odd that a poster like yourself, who uses Karl Marx as an avatar, looking honestly for "atheist anger," would not think immediately of the angry atheists that were (and to a lesser extent, are) the backbone of Marxism-Leninism.

Such groups would have been so well-known to DU posters, that it would not be necessary to mention them.

[rug]

19. Did anyone appoint him to speak for them?

And you're wrong about Marx. His backbone is the working class opposed to capitalism, not the petite bourgeoisie opposed to religion. Unlike many here, he saw the problem was the use of religion, not religious belief per se.

[Brettongarcia]

20. Many angry atheists? I mentioned not just Marx, but also "Marxism-LENINISM" and "Communism"

Which to be sure often seemed more explicitly atheist, than Marx himself. But "religion is the opiate of the masses," even there.

Then too, once again, you may be making a Distinction Without a Difference. Your distinction between 1) religion, and 2) the use of it, may be in practice, moot; since beauty is as beauty does. It doesn't matter what something is like in theory, as much as it matters what it does in practice. While in practice, revolutionary opposition to the bourgeois values, would soon butt heads with Religion after all. Particularly when religion, Christianity, was used to defend monarchies, the "divine right of kings." Religion defended even Russian serfdom or slavery: "Slaves, obey your masters," as the Bible told us.

Regarding the status of the angry atheist: is he a representative spokesman? It is not necessary to be "officially" appointed to serve as a spokesman. Not say, if 1) you feel you are a member of a group, 2) have experienced group solidarity over the values you want to express. And 3) if you meet with some notable validation from peers, when you do speak out. While many in fact clearly agreed with the poster. Enough to say that the speaker was accepted by some - if not all - atheists.

Why are you so anxious about angry atheists; denying their existence ... even as you regularly confront them on DU? No doubt many Christians would prefer there were no angry people opposing them at all. Just as Marie Antoinette might have wished. However, having a certain number of angry opponents helps some people take arguments more seriously. Or helps progressive movements succeed. No doubt the American soldiers of the Revolution had a certain amount of attitude; and it helped them succeed.

[rug]

21. "The angry atheist" is a cliche.

I have no anxiety about "angry atheists" But I do admit an intolerance for chronic assholes.

[Brettongarcia]

22. Gravity, in a sense, is a cliche; it's been noted a long time. That doesn't mean it is insignificant

[rug]

23. What are the other three cliches that hold the universe together?

[Brettongarcia]

24. Strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces, are also wellknown.

But if you're in say the rocket business, you can't ignore gravity. Or just walking down the street.

Forget any one of them, and you're out of business.