New op-ed piece on the "New Atheists" in The Guardian

[Gurdur]

There is a new and interesting op-ed piece by Madeleine Bunting in The Guardian today on the "New Atheists". The old-timers here on the HH will remember a similar piece by Dylan Evans, and his visit to the HH, a couple of years ago. Bunting's article talks about the latest outpourings from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, and their effect (or lack of it).

Being in a bad temper today (the result of being much dishonestly flamed on other boards), I added a public comment to the piece.

[Pyrogenesis]

The Guardian has the world's best comments section, and it's also neat that the best commentators are female - Zoe Williams, Polly Toynbee... can't recall Bunting's past comments, but the name is familiar, so I suppose she's cool too.

Though there was a ghastly comment on some movies being made that would include anthropology, the author of which (Simon Jenkins?) was so stunningly ignorant about anthropology that his ideas about it were current sometime in mid-1800s. A real embarrassment, but luckily that was a relatively isolated incident.

I'll go read the comment now.

[Jinx]

Can't share your enthusiasm, Tim. This reminds me of the Mike Moore wars: while much of what his critics said was feasible and sometimes even justifiable, they were incredibly ugly to read, because they were so damn hypocritical.

You can't lump Dawkins and Dennett in with Harris and Hitchens. They aren't the same people, they don't say the same things, and they don't argue with the same methodology.

Bunting paints with huge strokes this picture of New Atheists with 'little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use religious identity in political contexts' who 'do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand'. And that's exactly how her appraisal of New Atheism comes across.

Have any of these critics actually spoken to the people they're discussing? If Dawkins or Dennett had ever declared substantial support for Harris or Hitchens, it would make Bunting's position (vis the supporter) more palatable. But even if either had (not as far as I'm aware), it should be incumbent on Bunting to point it out to the reader. Columnists are supposed to research their subjects - Bunting seems to have done little more than read the most recent books by the people she mentions by name.

Speaking of research, look at the two critical essays she linked to (you won't need to travel far - both links go to Sam Harris's site). Novak's 'argues' by quoting the writers' conclusions in an incredulous manner - so much for reason - and Orlet's is quite sympathetic to the writers, who he describes as 'no different from outspoken skeptics of yesteryear'. So much for 'New'.

Essentially, Bunting has written a superficial book review. Rather than assessing the pros and cons of particular books, she's taken a conclusion loosely shared by all four, and implied that all of the texts she's discussing are responsible for the worst excesses of all the others.

And yes, the critics of religion would like to see religion reduced. Well inferred, Madeleine. I'd like to see common assault reduced, but that doesn't mean I want to live in a state which executes people for drunken brawls. Nor will my views change, just because a fellow anti-common-assaultist loudly advocates the practice.

Then instead of saying 'Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett have written bad books', she's said, 'This terrible New Atheist movement threatens to usher in a secular inquisition and make everyone mentally ill'.

Following Bunting's own methodology (ie. failing to ask the person in question), we can safely assume that she says this not because she believes it, but because controversy sells.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Jinx

Can't share your enthusiasm, Tim.

Ah well. Mebbe one day. Slip you a fiver?

If Dawkins or Dennett had ever declared substantial support for Harris or Hitchens, it would make Bunting's position (vis the supporter) more palatable.

I'm aware of public support Dawkins has given for David Mills () and IIRC, for Harris too.

But even if either had (not as far as I'm aware), it should be incumbent on Bunting to point it out to the reader.

It's an op-ed piece, not a really nicely researched and referenced paper. One usually doesn't expect all that much of shortish op-ed pieces.

Columnists are supposed to research their subjects

They are?
Seriously, out of all the suchlike columnists I know of, on all sides of the political fences, George Monbiot is the only one I have ever noticed making a consistant effort to give references and so on in his columns. Do you know of any others? And George Monbiot is muchly demonised anyway.

More much later, on the actual subject.

[verte]

In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".

Um. Gag their tongue and burn them at the stake for heresy?

I honestly have more quarrel with this kind of crap than someone who wants to pray quietly and home and doesn't get up my arse about it.

Gurdur, from your comment -

The extremist atheists are far more dangerous to moderate atheists than they will ever be to religion

I tend to agree, here in the US, at least, there are quite a few people who already want to accuse atheists of destroying morality and wanting to persecute all Christians. This is sure as hell not helping any.

[Jinx]

I followed your lead, and posted on there myself. Pretty much just a proofread version of what I said above, though. One guy posted a link to a counterpoint which, while it won't win any awards for insurmountable logic, seems a lot better thought out than Bunting's piece.

David Mills

Don't know much about the guy - I assume he's the one who wrote Atheist Universe? If so, I exchanged a couple of PMs with him on II, and he came across as slightly eccentric, but hardly frothing at the mouth. They were only a couple of sentences though, so it doesn't prove much.

One usually doesn't expect all that much of shortish op-ed pieces.

No, but that's a reason to generally deride op-ed pieces, not to acclaim specific ones which we happen to agree with.

Ah well. Mebbe one day. Slip you a fiver?

Done. Make it a ten, and I'll make sure you're Prime Minister by Christmas.*





*Offer guaranteed** or your money back.

**You might receive some funny looks afterwards, and you could probably change your name without my help. But I'll look after the admin. By posting this link: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/...ge_of_name.htm

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Originally Posted by Jinx

Bunting paints with huge strokes this picture of New Atheists with 'little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use religious identity in political contexts' who 'do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand'. And that's exactly how her appraisal of New Atheism comes across.

I kind of agree with you. The article reminds me of the reflexive "how could you not believe in god?" reaction I get sometimes when people find out I'm an atheist -- the very fact of atheism gets branded with the "extremist" label.

But then, look what's happened in the discussion below the article. The atheists have gone into all those iidb, EoG style arguments, and the Christians have responded in kind. So the whole thing has descended into a kind of fug where everyone gets on their high-horses and nothing comes of it.

Gurdur's post is different, but comes too late to have much of an impact on the direction of the discussion. I wonder how it might have gone if someone had gotten in early and said, "Okay then. So what are we, as atheists, supposed to do to get our message out? What sort of tone are we supposed to take? How should we be challenging opinions we believe are wrong?"

That might have lead to a more interesting debate -- one where both sides are allowed to be human and humane, rather than just robotic combatants running through the script we all got sick of on iidb.

</sermon>

[verte]

Originally Posted by Kim o the Concrete Jungle

That might have lead to a more interesting debate -- one where both sides are allowed to be human and humane, rather than just robotic combatants running through the script we all got sick of on iidb.

</sermon>

Excellent post, as usual, Kim.