Who are the New Atheists? Just what is "new" about them?

professor: Who are the New Atheists? Just what is "new" about them? Wired Magazin" rel="nofollow">ine has done a series of profiles and articles about the New Atheists, have in" rel="nofollow">indeed help codify them as a group, as a movement. A decent in" rel="nofollow">introduction to their project is found here, although it doesn't in" rel="nofollow">include Hitchens (no, this is not required readin" rel="nofollow">ing): http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html Dawkin" rel="nofollow">ing helpfully gave a recent in" rel="nofollow">interview with cnn.com: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/dawkin" rel="nofollow">ins-religion-no-moral-compass/?hpt=hp_bn2 Search wired.com for Hitchens, Dawkin" rel="nofollow">ins, or anyone else, and you'll fin" rel="nofollow">ind some in" rel="nofollow">interestin" rel="nofollow">ing coverage. What is "new"? I'd say it's two thin" rel="nofollow">ings, which overlap: (1) New Atheist authors are sarcastically, ascerbically outspoken in" rel="nofollow">in their critique of all of religion. Nietzsche and Sartre both believed, albeit it in" rel="nofollow">in rather different ways, that atheists should not exhaust themselves in" rel="nofollow">in proofs that God or gods did not exist; in" rel="nofollow">instead, present your own theory, which assumes atheism as a premise, and hopefully the truth of atheism will sin" rel="nofollow">ink in" rel="nofollow">in. Whereas New Atheist authors believe that showin" rel="nofollow">ing that the claims of religion are false, that religion itself is mostly of great harm to the world, is a deeply important project in" rel="nofollow">in-and-of itself. We atheists, they are sayin" rel="nofollow">ing, must speak the truth about religion, regardless of which atheist theory we subscribe to. And the truth they see about religion is shockin" rel="nofollow">ing and dismayin" rel="nofollow">ing. (2) The New Atheists are populist, this bein" rel="nofollow">ing the opposite of elitist. They believe that atheists ought to, "come out of the closet." It is difficult to overstate how radical this is in" rel="nofollow">in the history of ideas. There were atheists among ancient Greeks and Hin" rel="nofollow">indus, but they did not believe, as far as we know, that it was important to stand proud and say, "I am an atheist,"; in" rel="nofollow">indeed, almost all in" rel="nofollow">intellectual movements surroundin" rel="nofollow">ing atheist writin" rel="nofollow">ing have assumed, until this latest crop, that most people would probably remain" rel="nofollow">in religious, because most people cannot handle the truth. Not so, say the New Atheists; that is in" rel="nofollow">insultin" rel="nofollow">ing to, "most people." Your average Joe can become an atheist. Your average soccer mom can handle it, would in" rel="nofollow">indeed be better off. Questions for discussion: People who geek out about these authors are often enamored of the Pastafarian movement, AKA, the church of his noodly appendage. These are people who claim (and they are an officially registered religion with the US Federal gov, with the right to marry people and register houses of worship as non-profits) to worship the Flyin" rel="nofollow">ing Spaghetti Monster. Their mantra: "We'll stop believin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in our God when you stop believin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in yours." The FGM website and movement centers around a fascin" rel="nofollow">inatin" rel="nofollow">ing, simple argument, begun, perhaps, by the philosopher David Hume, who suggested that the world might have been created by a lovin" rel="nofollow">ing God, or it might have been laid as an egg by a gigantic chicken floatin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in outer space; neither claim was any more or less verifiable or rational. Similarly, the FGM crowd's argument can be summarized in" rel="nofollow">in two forms: (1) So some of you believe in" rel="nofollow">in God, and some of you believe in" rel="nofollow">in karma and rein" rel="nofollow">incarnation. Well, guess what! I believe that the there are two Gods; one is Butterfin" rel="nofollow">inger wrapper that's in" rel="nofollow">in my kitchen trash can, and the other is the sweater I'm wearin" rel="nofollow">ing. My claims are no more or less verifiable or rational than yours. Mock me, and you mock yourself. (2) The extreme diversity of religious belief about the origin" rel="nofollow">in of the universe and the purpose of existence, the world, and mankin" rel="nofollow">ind is such that the most logical conclusion is not that one belief system is right, but that they are all wrong. If any particular supernatural narrative were true, it would have become manifest or domin" rel="nofollow">inant by now. The rational person either accepts one religion, or rejects them all, because religions make factual claims about the world that directly contradict one another, so you can 'tolerate' and 'respect' as many as you like, but you cannot accept them. Both arguments have a common strategy: that all claims about the supernatural are on equal footin" rel="nofollow">ing by defin" rel="nofollow">inition, so therefore we may as well just make up our own 'god' or else stop believin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in all spiritual narratives. This basic, sarcastic, total dismissal of all religious experience is quite effective and popular among a growin" rel="nofollow">ing number of people. Just in" rel="nofollow">in San Francisco, several groups with Pastafarian pamphlets picket religious events at AT&T park to hand out atheist literature. What do you thin" rel="nofollow">ink of these arguments? A few caveats for discussion: The most common response to this topic is somethin" rel="nofollow">ing akin" rel="nofollow">in to, "Well, I thin" rel="nofollow">ink we should respect everyone's religious belief, so I don't know why these writer and people are bein" rel="nofollow">ing so in" rel="nofollow">intolerant." It's important to note that all these authors and probably all their followers respect the legal right of anyone to believe anythin" rel="nofollow">ing they want. They're not tryin" rel="nofollow">ing to take the 'right to believe' away from anyone. Their attitude is that bein" rel="nofollow">ing forthright and aggressive (aggressive in" rel="nofollow">in terms of argument and in" rel="nofollow">intellectual engagement) in" rel="nofollow">in tryin" rel="nofollow">ing to spread their belief system is no different from any religious missionary, and ought to be taken seriously. In other words, try to engage with the arguments, in" rel="nofollow">instead of simply poin" rel="nofollow">intin" rel="nofollow">ing out that they are rude.