James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Wired magazine's Gary Wolf tries to come to terms with what he calls the "New Atheists" by reviewing the latest Dawkins, Dennett and Harris books. (The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell and The End of Faith. and then interviewing the authors. There's some good stuff in his lengthy take on the subject, including ths scenario:
I RETURN FROM OXFORD enthusiastic for argument. I immediately begin trying out Dawkins' appeal in polite company. At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. "Who here is an atheist?" I ask.Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, "I am!"
But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: "You would be."
"Why?"
"Because you enjoy pissing people off."
"Well, that's true."
This type of conversation takes place not in central Ohio, where I was born, or in Utah, where I was a teenager, but on the West Coast, among technical and scientific people, possibly the social group that is least likely among all Americans to be religious. Most of these people call themselves agnostic, but they don't harbor much suspicion that God is real. They tell me they reject atheism not out of piety but out of politeness. As one said, "Atheism is like telling somebody, 'The very thing you hinge your life on, I totally dismiss.'" This is the type of statement she would never want to make.
This is the statement the New Atheists believe must be made - loudly, clearly, and before it's too late. I continue to invite my friends for a nice, invigorating stroll down Logic Lane. For the most part, they just laugh and wave me on.
I get the sense Wolf has trouble getting past his own biases and the confines of his particularly corner of the universe. Those reading the latest exchanges between some of my SciBlings, will recognize much of the sentiments described, however, including the notion that the dictates of etiquette are throwing a monkey-wrench into the debate.
In the end, Wold rejects "New Atheism" but not for any good reason. Still, his journey is worth following.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
In my reading, Wolf does not reject any of the beliefs (or lack thereof) of atheism, he only rejects coming out of the closet and publicly defending a lack of belief.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | November 14, 2006 9:50 AM
Exactly. He is rejecting the New Atheism, defined as agressive, proselytizing atheism. He seems to be saying, that we should all just get along, rather than worry about the social consequences of widespread religious devotion, which as Dawkins and Harris, and to an extend Dennett, point out, is really something we can't afford to stop worrying about.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | November 14, 2006 12:30 PM
And what is the extent of this "agressive proselytizing"? Do Dawkins and Harris go knocking on doors in the neighborhood? Have they stoned or disemboweled anyone for not sharing their viewpoint? Have they called on anyone else to do stoning or disembowelment? Have they advocated a takeover of the government to force their lack of belief on others?
No to all of the above. Instead they have written books and given speeches, pointing out that it is unwise and unsafe to believe in things that cannot be rationally justified. The nerve of them! Apparently a large number of people prefer that atheists stay content in the closet.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | November 14, 2006 6:47 PM