The New Atheism and Evolutionary Religious Studies: Clarifying Their Relationship

[rug]

Posted: 05/17/2012 6:50 pm
David Sloan Wilson.
Author, 'The Neighborhood Project: Using Evolution to Improve My City, One Block at a Time';
Editor-in-Chief, Evolution: This View of Life

Atheism is a disbelief in Gods. "The New Atheism" refers to an exceptionally active group of atheists centered around the work of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens. All four are distinguished intellectuals and scientists. Dawkins and Dennett are especially known as interpreters of evolution for the general public. Legions have become turned on to evolutionary science through their work.

Evolutionary Religious Studies (ERS) is the scholarly study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. Religion has been studied from other scholarly perspectives for centuries. Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and James George Frazier were early scholars of religion. Their goal was to explain religion as a purely human phenomenon, in the same way that scholars try to explain any other human phenomenon, such as government or warfare. This is in contrast to theologians, who are more likely to function as religious believers. A few religious scholars try to show that divine interventions actually happen, but the vast majority subscribe to a position known as methodological naturalism, which restricts explanations to naturalistic causes.

ERS is therefore one of the new kids on the block as far as religious studies is concerned. Its bold claim is that modern evolutionary science can go beyond the many other scholarly perspectives in shedding light on the nature of religion. While evolution was never entirely absent as a perspective, the modern version became prominent at the beginning of the 21st century with books such as Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer, In Gods We Trust by Scott Atran, and my own Darwin's Cathedral. The field has burgeoned since then; a partial list of prominent names includes Jesse Bering, Michael Blume (ETVOL'S religious editor), Joseph Bulbulia, Joseph Henrich, Dominic Johnson, Ara Norenzayan, Anthony Slingerland, Richard Sosis, and Harvey Whitehouse. If they are not yet household names, they should be for any household interested in religion from a scholarly perspective.

What is the relationship between the New Atheism and ERS? This question is surprisingly complex and needs to be answered in at least three steps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/evolutionary-religious-studies_b_1524227.html

[Goblinmonger]

1. Can't get past the first two sentences.

1. No, it isn't a "disbelief in Gods." That wording is written by people that presuppose that gods exist and that atheists just don't believe in them. I realize this is to some a nuanced difference that they don't care about, but it is the lack of belief in any gods. That wording is significantly different.

2. "The New Atheism" isn't really a thing other than something made up by people that don't like that atheists actually speak out. There is no marked difference between Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins about what they said about religion. Had Russell published "Why I am Not a Christian" at the same time as Dawkins published The God Delusion then Russell would be called a "New Atheist." Why not include him in the group since he wrote the same things?

[rug]

2. I think his point is that religion should be studied from sociology rather than polemics.

[humblebum]

3. "That wording is written by people that presuppose that gods exist" - you realize

of course that not even all atheists make the minute distinction. I know that atheists are individuals with varied perspectives, and, as such, do not all define their atheism in the same terms.

And as far as New Atheism is concerned, what sets it apart from simple atheism is its activist identity. In that respect, new atheism is nothing more than reconstituted old atheism.

[edcantor]

4. Does "new atheism" have an "activist identity" because

there are now computers and the internet, rather than simply typewriters and printing presses?

What specifically is different in the thinking of "new atheism" that wasn't present in the writings of the older atheists? Does "new atheism" have an "activist identity" because it is harder to avoid it if one uses the internet or has a television set in their home and church?

Does "new atheism" have an "activist identity" simply because computers and modern communication makes it far easier for fellow atheists to communicate in real time with each other and to set up coordinated and well attended conferences and public demonstrations? Does "new atheism" have an "activist identity" for these reasons or for others?

Bottom line: what specifically is meant by the term "new atheism"?

[mr blur]

6. Excellent points. nt

[cbayer]

5. This is the first I have read on this, but it is consistent with some of my own

way of looking at the relationship between religion and evolution.

I look forward to reading more.