New Atheists - different from the old?

Whilst I am hoping to find some people who will state their cases and explain what they think their position is called and what it believes (or perhaps doesn't), one of the conversations I have had this week was from a someone who was a devotee of Dawkins. They used the man's name repeatedly and spoke of the 'irrational beliefs' and 'delusions' of the 'religious'. They (note: it was them, not me!!) sneered at the philosophical emptiness of the old style atheists, putting them down as merely playing at being atheists.

New atheists, my companion said, 'Weren't interested in conversation but were, 'concerned with ridding the world of the religious faith groups and bringing about a new world order through social, political and educational means. 'We need to teach our kids that there's only us and that the God thing merely brings separation and causes wars, famine and poverty.' 

It is obvious that somewhere in the mix is something fuelled by the actions of fundamentalist believers and the twin towers for they, and other acts of violence, all featured in the conversation. It was also obvious that whilst we might be able to find some commonality between those who consider themselves to be new atheists, there are also very many differences (and for me one of these is that many of those who appeared to embrace it were very much of the red top tabloid variety!).

This is not meant as a put down but as a reference to the simplistic and unquestioning acceptance of some who fail to examine or challenge those whom they quote;  and the manner in which the adoption of the 'blame culture' tactics whereby all the world's ill can be laid at the door of a few groups:
those who have,
the politicians, and
the believers

(Interestingly what appears to the common element in all three is 'God' (really - don't see that but perhaps I wouldn't).

So who are the patriarchs of the new atheist movement ('old atheists' have Russell, Huxley and the like)?

Well, to name but a few there are: Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Park and many other major and minor prophets besides. What is interesting is that I don't see any clear thinkers in terms of philosophy or logic and there's a 'scientific' element (real and pseudo) behind everything which makes me think that perhaps we'd be better off relabelling 'new atheist' as 'enlightenment or renaissance II' (the first being 'if we can understand it we can control it', the second being 'if we use science we can deny it'?).

As the conversation progressed I was told that: 'The old atheists merely appear content to deny the existence of God and consider all the arguments, proofs and statements regarding God as ultimately false - and having thought thus, God disappears in a puff of logic! Not so the new brigade who want more. Their faith in science puts paid to the old faith in God.'

Another interesting observation in the conversation was the view: That just as Christianity trumped the pagan beliefs so too has scientificism (is that really a word?) trumped faith. This is a new world order: one that will see an end to famine, war and inequality for science can be the measure by which justice and order are made real and, 'Science is the only real way of knowing – everything else is just superstitious nonsense'

So perhaps I'm getting a clearer picture of what new atheism is (well in one person's view anyway) in that it is the new Messiah, 'Truth', that will lead us into understanding, knowledge and freedom from the cancer of faith and the multiplicity of gods that call for our attention, obeisance and defence in battle when deemed necessary (For as I was told: 'Remember the crusades and the inquisition, the result of religion!').

'Without faith, we will be better as well as wiser. Conflict is a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm.' (I think this is a paraphrase of Hitchens or Dawkins - can't find the direct quote so would lean towards Dawkins - clarification most welcome).

A nicer way of explaining away wars and conflicts (note I didn't say ALL) and selling the new atheism as the panacea to all ills and the vanquishing force against the evils of faith and religion (I see faith and religion as different things but others appear to see them as synonymous and interchangeable - What is certain is that the intended interpretation is that without 'faith' we will be well, peaceful and of one accord).

What concerns me is that I can see within the conversation that some think a faith in a lack of faith might lead to a new (atheist) world order. I think I'd rather have a faith-based, moral and ethical society (for there is much of that in the faith communities) rather than a function or scientific one!
Perhaps I am unsettled by the hints of things past that made me think we were looking to revisit the past with this striving for the utopic future it promises.

But that might just be me.

Twenty minutes of banging the keyboard, drinking tea and eating toast complete - over to you.

Pax

ps. I have modified this post to show where the comments were from my companion and the underlined segment is intended to show the ownership of the comments relating to the old order of atheism.

Thanks

Arrogance or informed: New Atheists Vs Christians

One of the biggest issues I find when engaging with atheists is that of the fact that one side is often willing to dialogue and the other is resolutely fixed and rigidly unwilling to move from their tenets, dogma, doctrine and beliefs (regardless of how irrational they are).

Of course what makes it even stranger is that the latter group are the 'Atheists' who cling to their beliefs (or should that be lack of beliefs?) and quote their prophets (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and others) and argue in a most illogical and emotive manner. In fact, truth be told, there are times when I struggle to see who the 'irrational people of faith' are.

That said, there are a number of quite flawed and fallible Christian sources; those who take extrapolation of things scientific and portray them as if they were fact. Those who argue for a 'young earth' and rail against evolution and seek to find the God of the gaps solutions that bring about an 'Intelligent Designer' for use by an ignorant (scientifically and theologically speaking) people.

I am about to embark upon a journey of exploration the goal of which is to dialogue and to enable others to dialogue with those who would contend that there is no God (and I'm happy for them to prove this - for the assumption for so many years having been that there is, the task is surely theirs to deny any such belief. I am content to remain with the status quo that there is) and to defend my own position (in a balanced manner - start shouting and all you will hear is your voice!).

I look forward to rejoinders (and will issue in return, of course, my own surrejoinders), correction and the impartation of facts (and opinions - for these too are helpful, perhaps even when not valid). I relish the challenge of being made to think and to look at how I might be able to gibe and answer for the hope that I have in Jesus, the Christ, to all (and any) that might ask; and I do so realising my limitations and trembling in trepidation at the paucity of my wit.

There are those who tell me that religious belief lies at the root of all the atrocities; that belief (they call it 'religion') is to be found at the root of all wars and conflicts. Of course the deaths, oppression and conflict founded in, and enacted by, non-faith groups (remember Russia, Marxism and so many other non-faith group like Nazism for instance) are glossed over.

Christianity is seen as an agent of conquest during the time of Empire and obviously wrong acts and response throughout the middle ages taken as a constant to be kept and used as a talisman to provide some form of absolute proof. The Acts of the Jewish nation throughout the Ancient Near East (and especially the actions of their God, the God also of the Christians) show how wicked God is.

The comparison of 'like for something different' whilst claiming congruence and equality uses both flawed science and logic and the lack of integrity (often unintentional) on both sides makes this a most difficult path to tread - but tread it I will.

Pray for me - educate me (facts is possible) - tolerate me

ps. I'm happy to defend my position but not in isolation - for many merely pepper me with cries of 'defend, defend . . . ' and I'd like to have those 'prove by logic, reason and the like . .'