Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com. For more information, check out his 
Over at Framing Science, I describe what I find so troubling about the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign:
It has radicalized a New Atheist movement of complaints and attacks that is almost completely devoid of a positive message about what it means to live life without religion.
Long before the New Atheist movement, sociologists began to identify an increase in the number of Americans who report "no religion" in surveys. What this growing segment of Americans needs is not a set of leaders who employ a form of "us vs. them" binary reasoning to add further division and polarization to the country, but leaders who set an agenda focused on community life and social responsibility. We need leaders who encourage atheists to work together with religious Americans to solve collective problems such as poverty and climate change.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Thanks Matthew, for a level-headed take on this subject. (Rare for scienceblogs.com)
Posted by: crimsongirl | June 26, 2007 02:45 PM
Of course you're right and I sincerely hope that is the way it goes.
However, you can't help but understand the exasperation of the zealous new atheists sometimes. Dawkins does point, a little bit, to the positive aspects of leading a life without religion but I think its currently overshadowed by the rest of the message.
Unfortunately, the moderates on both sides (i.e. the ones who could work together) are usually the quiet ones.
Posted by: Pelio | June 26, 2007 03:18 PM
One problem is that not many people within either the atheist or scientific community have called attention to the potential negative impacts of the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign.
What does this do to the public image of science and scientists?
In radicalizing a segment of the atheist community, what is the long term damage to the atheist movement?
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 26, 2007 03:25 PM
I disagree, there have been quite a few atheists and scientists who have objected to the more aggressive approach of the "new atheists", including (perhaps most notably) Michael Ruse:
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/08/06/ruse/index.html
but also Neil deGrasse Tyson:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/tyson_and_dawkins.php
and of course your own colleague, Chris Mooney.
And frankly, I think they, and you, are simply wrong, especially about the long term. It has been over eight decades since the Scopes Trial, when religion threatened science in a highly specific way. Over those eight decades, polite, deferential atheists have quietly suggested in the most respectful and non-offensive way that perhaps this situation might not in some circumstances be the most optimal for everyone. The result of that approach is that religion threatens science on more fronts now than when Clarence Darrow lost his case. Yet, in the space of a handful of years, atheism and the impact of religion on science is now on the public agenda -- the subject of massive best-sellers, of talk shows, of blogs, etc.
So tell me again how this "PR campaign" has been unsuccessful, compared to the previously-tried alternative?
Posted by: Tulse | June 26, 2007 04:41 PM
Tulse,
I think the flaw with your definition of the problem and that of the New Atheists is using the very loose label "religion."
In fact, what you are describing are the attempts of a small group of Christian conservative operatives to impose their political interpretation of religion in policymaking, in the process using framing and other strategies to try to set the political agenda for religious Americans.
If anything, as I've argued on intelligent design, the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign makes it easier for this small group of conservative elites to turn moderately religious Americans against the teaching of evolution.
Ultimately, I think what is at risk with the New Atheism movement is major damage to the public image of science among the wider American public.
Morever, I think for atheists it's misleading and distracting, radicalizing a segment of atheists into a "us vs. them" mentality where all forms of religion pose an undefined threat.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 26, 2007 04:50 PM
And full civil rights for blacks and women in the US were achieved by quiet civil discussions and not by using 'in your face' tactics that alienated those with traditional positions about voting rights and integration.
NOT
Posted by: Benjamin Franz | June 26, 2007 04:52 PM
As DJ Grothe and I discussed in the Point of Inquiry interview I did a while back, I think a useful model for promoting what it means to live life without religion is the gay movement.
Instead of a militancy decrying the heterosexism of society, gays have engaged in a celebration of gay culture while working with Hollywood to boost positive portrayals of gay central characters in TV and film. It's about mainstreaming social norms and perceptions in a positive way.
Atheists need to work towards articulating and presenting a celebration of secular culture and values instead of turning into a radical movement of complaints and attacks that just adds to polarization in society.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 26, 2007 04:56 PM
Yeah, and how much has tolerating that done for science? How much has waiting for the more liberal religious elements to actively fight against that accomplished? I appreciate your position, but let's face it -- we wouldn't even be having a discussion about the role of religion in science if it weren't for Dawkins (or, perhaps more accurately, there wouldn't be such discussions going on in the public arena).
As for you comments about the gay movement, where were you when Stonewall happened? Did you never see a protest with participants chanting "We're queer, we're here, we're not going away!" Have you not seen the very "in your face" posters on college campuses for "Dyke Night" or "Queer Hop"? As I see it, these and other similar phenomena (including the very public fight over gay marriage) are not simply about "celebrating gay culture" -- they are very much about demanding an equal place in our society, no matter how uncomfortable that makes people (and often intentionally pushes that uncomfortableness to make the point). It sounds to me like you're advocating the equivalent of "Don't ask, don't tell" for atheists. Not every atheist wants to be Will on Will and Grace.
Posted by: Tulse | June 26, 2007 11:13 PM
One of the posters really nailed it with the comment that people such as Hitchens display a completely bleak and vacant sociology, truly a winter's scene. Dawkins has always seemed to me essentially childish in his frantic efforts to get round the now deceased Gould. You can read a few paragraphs from either of these literary molesters and then just take a few pages from one of Gould's charming and deeply optimistic essays, and feel a lot better.
Do you think people born and raised in North America, here I speak of Canada, can truly be atheist? I always feel a sort of stab of pity when I hear a person describe themselves in that way. I see them as lost souls, doomed, and if they continue, dammed. Their behaviours seem to inevitably veer off toward one of the standard fates of those who test the patience of the Creator, or perhaps their own inner child, or committee, or self in the Jungian version of soul, call the principle what you will.
But even if it is possible to be such a person in some cold limited analytic way, you can't live on that. Where else will you find the comforts of religion except within a religion.
"The hapless soldier's sigh
runs in blood down palace walls..."
That is what we have to deal with right now , and alas it is quite clear there is going to be a lot of it. And who do you suppose you may find huddled next to you in the black days ahead, telling the beads of their own sudden conversion. If you have to burn a few books burn Dawkins, burn Hitchens.
Heck, burn Hitchens several times. Feels great.
Posted by: garhane | June 27, 2007 01:32 AM
This sounds very similar to the problems in the Middle East and many other places around the world, where religion dictates who you associate with. In my humble opinion, the best outcome would be for everyone to forget about the religious part and accept everyone as an American.
Posted by: Bill | June 27, 2007 07:38 AM
Tulse,
I reject the idea that there are parallels between the civil rights movement and atheists. Last I checked, atheists have civil rights and always have. Like with any minority, these rights need to be watchdogged and defended, but for the most part, it's pretty easy being successful in life if you are an atheist just like it's pretty easy being successful if you are a Mormon, an orthodox Jew etc. You live life as a minority, but you get by in a pluralistic society where your rights are protected and dissent is respected.
Sure, atheists have a public image problem, as evidenced by the long standing poll trends that show Americans would not vote for an atheist for president, or evaluations of atheists that rate down there with communists.
Yet an image problem is a two-way street. Certainly the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign is not helping these numbers. While radicalizing atheists, the duo further reinforces the stereotype of the atheist as the "alien other," someone not like us.
That's why I think positive entertainment portrayals of religious non-believers along with atheists who play leading roles working with diverse groups within their communities are so important. It's about changing social norm perceptions, not hitting people over the head with attacks on their religious beliefs or retreating from society into a like minded blogosphere.
Many Americans think that they don't know an atheist and carry around in their heads instead a Dawkins-like stereotype of an arrogant, eccentric and insulting know-it-all. That needs to change, yet Dawkins/Hitchens are just making things worse.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | June 27, 2007 07:50 AM
You may want to go through your 'spam' pile. I posted a response to your last yesterday that linked to several examples of how atheists parallel the civil rights movement in their battle for basic rights. I suspect the 'spam' filter snagged it for having too many links.
Posted by: Benjamin Franz | June 28, 2007 12:48 PM