When I was involved in the movement I thought it WAS a principled opposition to the problems religions frequently cause, but maybe that was my naïveté, being on the periphery of the ring, and chalking bad behaviors up to the internet bringing out bad behavior in any group. Or maybe the groups I were involved in were not representative. In my experience, there was a lot of thought put into being respectful of religious perspectives while pointing out legitimate criticisms, showing kindness, and offering secular alternatives for finding meaning and building community.
Anyways, thank you for writing this. I’ve always greatly appreciated your writing and perspectives!
I'm late to the post but I'm really looking forward to the rest of your series James! I agree with basically everything you've said here, although I've not read or listened to the original argument. It does strike me that the demographics simply don't support the claim that atheism is dying and Christianity is about to surge. New Atheism is definitely over but there are more of us now then ever.
I do think one thing we see in Canada and the UK is that while the political influence of over evangelicals is negligible compared to the USA, the institutional strength of Christian privilege remains extremely strong. You mention the UK Lords but there's also publicly-funded faith schools in both countries and even more substantively many social policies that are tied to essentialist religious worldviews. Here I'm thinking about the rampant anti-trans views in the UK or an inability for politicians to move on widely popular issues like assisted dying (Canada being an exception because of our courts).
In this way, the strength of Christianity is less about how many people still go to church, pray or even believe in God but in deep seated biases that are antithetical to humanist values. I do think the trends are still with us on this front but I just want to push back a bit on the notion that the UK (or Canada) have achieved a fully secular and pluralistic society yet.
Thanks for writing this. I will die on the hill of people saying religion is making a comeback because of the New Atheists who weren't "new" only had better brand and messaging even if most all of them turned into awful people. I once showed the film Handmaid's Tale to my Humanist group in the late 90s and they laughed at my reaction that Christian Nationalists were a threat. All of the ones not taking it seriously only had been exposed to liberal Christianity like UUism. They didn't look past their noses and thought atheists were smug and arrogant and we attacked religious people which wasn't true. The religious extremists here in the US may not be overtly violent but people who challenge that privilege get death threats. Religious people who should know better let atheists fight the battles that mattered in church and state separation and instead of thanks and support we got eye rolls and tisk tisks.
Thanks for this, James. I generally agree, though I could not have explained my reaction as clearly and rigorously as you did here. I grew up in the US, and despite identifying as gay and transgender as a teenager in the '90s, my feelings about religion leaned positive. I grew up Reform Jewish. I thought of "religion" as a repository for ethical commitment as well as feelings of security, warmth, wonder, and joy, and I'd absorbed some cultural stereotypes of "atheism" as nothing but cold, annoying, uninformed contrarianism. I liked reading philosophical arguments, and I was aware that theologians wrote their own brands, so I tended to gravitate to those religious books. Less so did I gravitate to atheist philosophers because I tended to be prejudiced that they were "lacking" religion. But I was troubled because, well, I didn't believe in the classical God. I just didn't. It was hard for me to admit that with such simplicity. I was 26 when Dawkins published The God Delusion (2006). I read it when it came out, and the clarity and force of the argument gave me space to admit that I, too, was an atheist. Something about Dawkins's attitude rubbed me the wrong way (the smugness, perhaps); his voice was not my voice; but basically, his nonbelief was my nonbelief. I read a few other books by New Atheists and found myself in general agreement with them, though I never quite carried their flag as a true (non)believer. I was grateful for New Atheism because it allowed me to move on from the question of "Is there a God?" That question always caused me to spin my wheels. My final answer is "No, and so..." from which secular perspective we can examine and discuss many interesting things. One odd phenomenon — this is personally a little weird for me — is that Dawkins unmasked as a transphobe a couple years ago. And I believe he's not the only one of the New Atheists who take this stance. My gender transition was in 1998, and it was Dawkins's book that helped me accept I was an atheist in 2006, so I just... It's not that I ever felt he, as an individual, offered me "acceptance." For example, I didn't necessarily get a vibe that Dawkins knew or cared why Judaism is important to Jews (even to the atheist ones like me). I was always aware that New Atheism wasn't warmly inviting or nuanced about human differences like that. But it's a little disconcerting to feel that I gained some conceptual clarity from New Atheism when those same people are still out there saying that my gender is not my gender. Perhaps that is something you'll be covering in your next installment in this series.
Thank you for this piece. It is good to get your perspective and response to Justin. As an Evangelical Christian in American working in religious diplomacy and toward freedom for all religions and Secular Humanists, I especially appreciated your reminder that many American Christians seek to suppress the freedoms of others. Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and Secular Humanists need to work with more neighborly Christians toward a confident pluralism and freedom for all. I'd love to work with you on this through the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy where I work as executive director.
When I was involved in the movement I thought it WAS a principled opposition to the problems religions frequently cause, but maybe that was my naïveté, being on the periphery of the ring, and chalking bad behaviors up to the internet bringing out bad behavior in any group. Or maybe the groups I were involved in were not representative. In my experience, there was a lot of thought put into being respectful of religious perspectives while pointing out legitimate criticisms, showing kindness, and offering secular alternatives for finding meaning and building community.
Anyways, thank you for writing this. I’ve always greatly appreciated your writing and perspectives!
I'm late to the post but I'm really looking forward to the rest of your series James! I agree with basically everything you've said here, although I've not read or listened to the original argument. It does strike me that the demographics simply don't support the claim that atheism is dying and Christianity is about to surge. New Atheism is definitely over but there are more of us now then ever.
I do think one thing we see in Canada and the UK is that while the political influence of over evangelicals is negligible compared to the USA, the institutional strength of Christian privilege remains extremely strong. You mention the UK Lords but there's also publicly-funded faith schools in both countries and even more substantively many social policies that are tied to essentialist religious worldviews. Here I'm thinking about the rampant anti-trans views in the UK or an inability for politicians to move on widely popular issues like assisted dying (Canada being an exception because of our courts).
In this way, the strength of Christianity is less about how many people still go to church, pray or even believe in God but in deep seated biases that are antithetical to humanist values. I do think the trends are still with us on this front but I just want to push back a bit on the notion that the UK (or Canada) have achieved a fully secular and pluralistic society yet.
Thanks for writing this. I will die on the hill of people saying religion is making a comeback because of the New Atheists who weren't "new" only had better brand and messaging even if most all of them turned into awful people. I once showed the film Handmaid's Tale to my Humanist group in the late 90s and they laughed at my reaction that Christian Nationalists were a threat. All of the ones not taking it seriously only had been exposed to liberal Christianity like UUism. They didn't look past their noses and thought atheists were smug and arrogant and we attacked religious people which wasn't true. The religious extremists here in the US may not be overtly violent but people who challenge that privilege get death threats. Religious people who should know better let atheists fight the battles that mattered in church and state separation and instead of thanks and support we got eye rolls and tisk tisks.
Thanks for this, James. I generally agree, though I could not have explained my reaction as clearly and rigorously as you did here. I grew up in the US, and despite identifying as gay and transgender as a teenager in the '90s, my feelings about religion leaned positive. I grew up Reform Jewish. I thought of "religion" as a repository for ethical commitment as well as feelings of security, warmth, wonder, and joy, and I'd absorbed some cultural stereotypes of "atheism" as nothing but cold, annoying, uninformed contrarianism. I liked reading philosophical arguments, and I was aware that theologians wrote their own brands, so I tended to gravitate to those religious books. Less so did I gravitate to atheist philosophers because I tended to be prejudiced that they were "lacking" religion. But I was troubled because, well, I didn't believe in the classical God. I just didn't. It was hard for me to admit that with such simplicity. I was 26 when Dawkins published The God Delusion (2006). I read it when it came out, and the clarity and force of the argument gave me space to admit that I, too, was an atheist. Something about Dawkins's attitude rubbed me the wrong way (the smugness, perhaps); his voice was not my voice; but basically, his nonbelief was my nonbelief. I read a few other books by New Atheists and found myself in general agreement with them, though I never quite carried their flag as a true (non)believer. I was grateful for New Atheism because it allowed me to move on from the question of "Is there a God?" That question always caused me to spin my wheels. My final answer is "No, and so..." from which secular perspective we can examine and discuss many interesting things. One odd phenomenon — this is personally a little weird for me — is that Dawkins unmasked as a transphobe a couple years ago. And I believe he's not the only one of the New Atheists who take this stance. My gender transition was in 1998, and it was Dawkins's book that helped me accept I was an atheist in 2006, so I just... It's not that I ever felt he, as an individual, offered me "acceptance." For example, I didn't necessarily get a vibe that Dawkins knew or cared why Judaism is important to Jews (even to the atheist ones like me). I was always aware that New Atheism wasn't warmly inviting or nuanced about human differences like that. But it's a little disconcerting to feel that I gained some conceptual clarity from New Atheism when those same people are still out there saying that my gender is not my gender. Perhaps that is something you'll be covering in your next installment in this series.
Thank you for this piece. It is good to get your perspective and response to Justin. As an Evangelical Christian in American working in religious diplomacy and toward freedom for all religions and Secular Humanists, I especially appreciated your reminder that many American Christians seek to suppress the freedoms of others. Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and Secular Humanists need to work with more neighborly Christians toward a confident pluralism and freedom for all. I'd love to work with you on this through the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy where I work as executive director.