A battle beyond belief

[rug]

Secular views ruled decades ago, so why are New Atheists acting like the underdogs?

Gary Bouma
April 12, 2012
Opinion

ATHEISM seems to be on the rise; at least it is more often in the news and its voices are more frequently heard and are occasionally strident. What is happening here?

First a few facts. In the 2006 census, 3.7 million or 18.7 per cent of Australians declared that they had ''no religion'', but only 31,000 of these or 0.16 per cent wrote that they were atheists. Another 0.11 per cent wrote that they were ''agnostic'', 0.04 per cent claimed they were ''humanists''' and 0.01 per cent said ''rationalists''. Most were simply saying they had no religious affiliation.

The percentage writing ''atheist'' did increase by 29.2 per cent from 2001 to 2006, making atheism one of the faster growing groups of religious identification, growing faster than Buddhists (17 per cent) or Muslims (20.6 per cent.)

Given their comparatively small numbers, why does New Atheism seem to be on the rise? It is not that the ideas propounded are new. They have been current since the Enlightenment in the 18th century and were popular in the 19th century. Indeed from the 1960s to the late 1990s, these ideas formed the basis for the dominant kind of secular understandings of the world. Policymakers did not consider the religious implications of policy. The dominant social theories about religion were about secularisation, decline and the disappearance of religion in the face of modernisation.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-battle-beyond-belief-20120411-1ws4l.html

[Angry Dragon]

1. And the truth shall set you free

[cbayer]

16. What truth are you referring to?

[Angry Dragon]

18. That the god as set forth in the Bible does not exist

There may be gods but how can one love a god that puts conditions on love??

[cbayer]

21. So you are not referring to atheism then? Or am I reading this wrong.

[Angry Dragon]

24. I believe to be truly an atheist

one has to take steps and not just blindly reject the existence of all gods

[cbayer]

25. what kinds of steps?

[Angry Dragon]

26. Depends on the individual

One does not just wake up one morning and state there are no gods


Questions without answers

[darkstar3]

2. 18th and 19th century? No. Try 300 BCE and Epicurus.

The ideas behind atheism, whether called new or old, have been around since before religion, and they've been famous since at least 300 BCE.

This is why the words "New Atheism" are nothing but a poorly capitalized oxymoron.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. His opening census statistics are a bit misleading

The census question was:

Question What is the person's religion?

Answering this question is OPTIONAL.
For example, Salvation Army, Hinduism, Judaism or Humanism.
If no religion, mark last box.

( ) Catholic
( ) Anglican
( ) Uniting Church
( ) Presbyterian
( ) Greek Orthodox
( ) Baptist
( ) Lutheran
( ) Islam
( ) Buddhism
( ) Other - please specify
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
( ) No religion

http://www.humanist.org.au/

So the only people writing in 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'humanist' and 'rationalist' were those who see those as religions (or who are willing to call them a religion, if it meant getting the precise category recorded). Really, that census made no effort to allow the 18.7% to say whether they were personally religious but not affiliated to anything they care to name, spiritual but not religious, agnostic, atheist, or other non-religious categories. The question was also optional; another 11.2% didn't answer, for, no doubt, a variety of reasons.

So the number of 'atheists' may or may not have been "comparatively small"; it may have been 20% or 2%, for all we know.

[rug]

5. Except that the concept of atheism is meaningless except in the context of religion.

It, as an idea, is simply a counterpoint to theism. There are certainly more accurate and meaningful ways to describe oneself than by a negative. "Who are you?" "I am not a ----------." Since the question asked a person's identification in the context of religion, atheist is an apt choice.

That aside, self-reporting surveys, while interesting and useful to an extent, should be viewed with a healthy skepticism.

[trotsky]

6. Just as being a nonsmoker is meaningless except in the context of smoking.

Because before anything was smoked, everyone was a nonsmoker.

[rug]

7. That's almost correct.

Before tobacco, nonsmoker was a meaningless phrase.

Personally, I am a nonteleporter.

[trotsky]

8. Just as before the first person got drunk, "sober" was a meaningless word.

Right?

[rug]

9. Right.

I'm not a telepathist either.

[trotsky]

13. Since teleportation (of people at least) hasn't been invented yet...

even though the term is meaningless, you said you were a non-teleporter.

Just as before tobacco, even though the term was meaningless, everyone was a nonsmoker.

Just as before alcohol, even though the term was meaningless, everyone was sober.

And just as before theism, even though the term was meaningless, everyone was an atheist.

Glad we're on the same page, rug.

[rug]

23. I'm also an noncincodimensionalist.

Isn't everyone?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. 'Theism' wasn't mentioned either

and, arguably, 'theism' isn't a religion either, but a philosophical stance, which includes many religions such as Christianity, Hinduism etc.

The census question did not ask the person to 'describe themselves', or 'who are you'; it asked what the person's religion was. The direct object in the question was 'religion'. 'Atheist/atheism' as an answer implies that it is a religion, which most atheists, and dictionaries and authorities, think is wrong.

For the purposes of determining someone's beliefs, a census is probably the best thing there is, even if you regard it as just a 'self-reporting survey'. It's compulsory to fill out the overall census, and with this one question optional, a completion rate of over 88% is better than any other survey or poll would manage. The only improvement could be to make this question compulsory too; but some people think this would induce fears in minority religions. We don't have mind-reading equipment, nor the resources to investigate the entire population of a country to see if their 'self-reporting' is at odds with the reality of their behaviour, so you really are stuck with 'self-reporting'. You could do surveys of the attendance at places of religion, but that always shows a far lower level of observance than questionnaires do.

[rug]

11. A lot of things weren't. That's why there was "Other', with a request to specify.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. and 'other' would be an adjective applied to 'religion'

You said 'atheism' is a counterpoint to 'theism'. But 'theism' isn't a religion, and although millions of theists replied to the question, the vast majority of them did not put down 'theism' or 'theist' as the answer. Even without the suggested choices, I think very few would have put theism or theist as the answer to "what is the person's religion?"

[Goblinmonger]

14. Yep, I would have just answered "No Religion"

and not done anything so specify since it is clear the demographic question is about which religion you are. Made even more clear by the delineation into various Christian sects but no such delineation for "no religion."

[LeftishBrit]

4. Good points - note this is not just about America

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2013, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

In America, atheists and agnostics may indeed be seriously outnumbered. In Britain and Australia, they are not - but the religious right is still on the attack. Google 'Tony Abbott', and bear in mind that he is just one parliamentary seat from being Australia's Prime Minister.

There is an old, and not very valid, conservative political saying, 'A conservative is a liberal who got mugged'. Much more validly, a 'New Atheist' may often be a tolerant atheist or agnostic, who got mugged by the religious right.

[cbayer]

17. YOur last point is interesting. What do you mean when you say "mugged by the religious right"?

[LeftishBrit]

19. In my specific case...

I mean a vicious smear campaign by 'pro-lifers' against my MP, which contributed to his defeat by a Tory in 2010. And more recently, things like this in my backyard:

http://oxfordstudent.com/2012/02/18/comment-exeter-college-welcomes-homophobes/

I should make it clear that the majority of religious people and groups in the UK are not right-wing; and that our Tory-led government, horrible as it is in many ways, is not dominated by the religious right. But any of this sort of stuff is too much!

More generally, I mean the increasing political aggressiveness of those who do use religion in the cause of right-wing politics in many places.

[cbayer]

20. That's what I figured you meant.

I know the UK is a very different situation, but we need to fight the religious right on every front.


Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[edhopper]

15. The "New Atheist" never called themselves

New Atheist. That is a media coined name and quite meaningless.

[LeftishBrit]

22. I agree that it's fairly meaningless, as outspoken atheism is far from new, and neither is the right

wing hatred of atheists.

Here is a link to the poem, 'The New Morality' written over 200 years ago by the British Tory politician and writer George Canning, at a time when French Revolutionary ideas played the same sort of role in right-wing demonology as Communism was to play at a later stage:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/new-morality/


'Last of the Anointed five behold, and least,
The Directorial Lama, Sovereign Priest,--
Lepaux: whom athiests worship; at whose nod
Bow their meek heads the men without a God.[18]


Ere long, perhaps, to this astonish'd Isle,
Fresh from the shores of subjugated Nile,
Shall Buonaparte's victor fleet protect
The genuine Theo-philanthropic sect,--
The sect of Marat, Mirabeau, Voltaire,--
Led by their pontiff, good La Reveillere.
--Rejoiced our Clubs shall greet him, and install
The holy Hunch-back in thy dome, St. Paul!
While countless votaries thronging in his train
Wave their Red Caps, and hymn this jocund strain:


"Courier's and Stars, Sedition's Evening Host,
"Thou Morning Chronicle, and Morning Post,
"Whether ye make the Rights of man your theme,
"Your Country Libel, and your God blaspheme,
"Or dirt on private worth and virtue throw,
"Still blasphemous or blackguard, praise Lepaux! ...


"Guard we but our own hearts: with constant view
To ancient morals, ancient manners true,
True to their manlier virtues, such as nerved
Our father's breasts, and this proud Isle preserved
For many a rugged age:--and scorn the while,--
Each philosophic atheist's specious guile--
The soft seductions, the refinements nice,
Of gay morality, and easy vice:
So shall we brave the storm: our 'stablish'd power
Thy refuge, Europe, in some happier hour.
But, French in heart--tho' victory crowns our brow,
Low at our feet though prostrate nations bow,
Wealth gild our cities, commerce crown our shore
London may shine, but England is no more.'


So we may note that 'philosophic atheists' are an old species; so is the rhetorical trick of described outspoken atheists as 'priests', 'worshipped by their followers'; so is the religious-right tendency to lump together religion, traditional 'ancient' values, 'manliness' and nationalism. And so is the tendency, shown in the title of the poem, to treat all that one dislikes as 'New'.