The reason new atheism has lost its mojo is that it has no answers to the lack of meaning and purpose that our post-Christian societies are suffering from. What will fill that void? Religious people have their answer. Do the rest of us?
From the ashes of 9-11 arose what is now called new atheism. Popularized by men such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, new atheism adopted a polemical approach to religion — especially Christianity and Islam. In the mind of these men and others like them, many forms of religious faith deserved ridicule and mockery. From writing books to podcasts to debates, new atheists directly challenged Christianity and Islam, saying that it was time to abandon tribal religions and embrace science, reason, and skepticism.
A decade ago, some new atheists proposed a new atheism called atheism+. According to these atheists, atheism was more than the absence of belief in the existence of gods; that atheism included various social justice issues. This led to a horrific split among atheists: those who embraced atheism+ and those who held that atheism was the absence of belief in the existence of gods, nothing more and nothing less.
While atheism+ certainly appealed to me, I rejected the notion that atheism proper required certain social and political beliefs. Atheism described my view of deities, and that’s it. My moral and ethical framework came not from atheism, but from secular humanism. So to Konstantin Kisin’s claim I say, (new) atheism was never meant to provide “answers to the lack of meaning and purpose that our post-Christian societies are suffering from.” Humanism, in both its Christian and secular forms, can and does provide answers to questions about human meaning and purpose.
Politically and socially atheists believe all sorts of things. I embrace many of the same things that the proponents of atheism+ do. I have been called “woke” or a “social justice warrior,” to which I reply, “and your point is, exactly?” I have nuanced political and social beliefs. However, none of these beliefs is dependent on atheism. What I found with atheism+ was a fundamentalism of sorts, not much different from that which I experienced in Evangelical Christianity. And when I pointed out this fact, the evangelists of atheism+ jumped on me with both feet. These preachers of the infallible, inerrant atheism+ gospel let me know, in George W. Bush fashion, that either I was with them or against them.
Atheism is not meant to answer any other question except does a god or gods exist? If you are looking for meaning and purpose in a postmodern world, you are going to have to look elsewhere. For me, secular humanism (and other non-religious philosophies) gave me what I needed to find purpose and meaning in life.
Atheism tells me there is no God. Humanism tells me I don’t need a deity to provide meaning and purpose in my life. Over the past sixteen years, I have repeatedly answered and rebutted Evangelicals who say that without Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you cannot have meaning and purpose in life. My life, and that of numerous people who read this blog, suggests otherwise.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
There was this thing called Atheism+ but atheism, as Bruce says is multifaceted. In the long run, Christians are not the enemy. Eventually they too will be assimilated into the New Atheism. To us, they have simply lost their way. It is up to us to guide them back to the proper evolutionary path that Nature originally set out for them. These Christians are simply part of our great family that lost their way.
I find them to be the enemy since they spread fear, ignorance and lies.
Bruce, you’re always topping yourself. This post is another example. I am compelled to read your blog EVERY SINGLE BLOODY DAY so I don’t miss any new gems. Or any of the comments from friends and foes. Dammit, man, I had a lot more free time before I found brucegerencser.net. Dammit, dammit anyway! 😄🙏
New atheism, atheism+, whatever name we choose (bearing in mind that the term ‘new’ was coined pejoratively by its opponents), it is still ultimately lack of belief in gods. I think many people, not just religious believers, trip over this point, and one sees debates being completely derailed by this lack of understanding. One must ask oneself honestly ‘what do I believe’? Not what can be proved, or supported by evidence, which is agnosticism, but BELIEVE. Ultimately almost everyone has a deep seated belief on the subject; either you believe gods exists or you don’t. This is why I think that almost all people can, on this subject, be regarded as agnostic (itself a relatively modern term, introduced to confuse matters), but then will commit either to theism or to atheism. Rather like the television detective who has a suspect in front of him, but no, or little evidence. His colleague asks him what he thinks and he says that in his gut he knows the suspect is guilty, but he can’t prove it.
I know many disagree with me.
Atheism is a conclusion to which I came through examining evidence and my own experience. While I probably agree with most of the tenets of atheism+, I never could embrace such a worldview or way of life. To me, atheism+ Is the exact opposite of what brought me to my atheism and the principles of social justice I embrace: It stifles rather than encourages inquiry and dialogue.
Linking the attitudes of atheism+ proponents to the current polarized political climate is astute. Not only is there a “for me/against me” attitude, there is also the expectation that if you think “x,” you must believe “y.” As an example, if I express my disdain for Donald Trump or Ron De Santis, some would assume that I am a fan of Joe Biden. (I voted for him in the general election, but not the primary.) Or if I complain about someone waving the flag in my face, I am not a loyal American rather than someone who wants her personal space respected.
seems Konstatin is utterly ignorant about eveyr other worldview out there. pitiful. atheism is a conclusion that a particular god or gods doesnt’ exist. It has nothing to do with “finding meaning”. and since these idiot theists are also atheists, the plaint that they make fails.
Honestly, I found some good points among the New Atheists, but I was put off by the tone. It seemed to be a very white male highly educated arrogant Western-European/North American dominant place. The concepts of atheism+ are good, but again, I don’t see atheism (simply a lack of belief in deities/supernatural) as needing to be tied to anything else. Humanism which can include people from all faiths or no faith seems like a better place for discussing ethical issues.
I liken it to the industry in which I work, the fragrance industry. We have 2 very important bodies. The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM) conducts research on fragrance materials. The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) examines the data from RIFM and puts together the safety codes and practices for the fragrance industry (meaning, what are the effects of the materials for various applications, how/when to use the materials, which materials to prohibit, etc – safety codes). RIFM, like New Atheism, provides the data. IFRA (like humanism perhaps) addresses safety in use, best practices, etc., so that our industry is able to use these materials in the safest way to create beautiful and efficacious fragrances to be enjoyed by consumers.
Atheist+ was the acme of bad ideas. Basically it attempted to push a set of social values as atheist orthodoxy. While many atheists do tend to share a socially liberal outlook, there is certainly considerable variability. Not only that some people take longer to accept certain attitudes.
Rather than small tent atheism, it is better to have a bigger tent. We don’t have to be a monolith. Possibly the most important role in the coming years will be as a growing political force to counter the shrinking and more desperate religious right.
It seems like the founders of Atheism+ were of a type: white, educated men. Women weren’t given as much power, so does that mean atheism is misogynist? (No, but apparently Atheism+ was.) Also, I’ve been reading about Richard Dawkins discussion/embrace of prominent transphobes. Gives that whole thing a bad taste in actual enlightened people’s mouths.
@BJW and others:
I’m not sure if I should belabor the point, since Atheist+ pretty much burned itself out about 10 years ago. But I think most people in this blog have it reversed (for example Dawkins was most definitely NOT Atheist+)
According to founder McCreight’s original “Atheism+” blog post:
We (Atheist+) are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism
While many atheists have attitudes that are on the spectrum supporting these issues, some don’t. I don’t see much need to lump them together, but what’s worse it created an orthodoxy and of course division and exclusion. Not everyone adopts liberal social attitudes at the same rate, to exclude someone before they are isn’t particularly useful.
Now why might Dawkins not accept transexuals? Well he is a biologist in his 80s. Does this mean everything he writes about is worthless? No. In fact until Atheist+ you could read a Dawkins book and that entire list would be largely irrelevant.