New Yorker essay on Atheists with Attitude

Read a New Yorker essay on Atheists with Attitude by Anthony Gottlieb where books by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are reviewed.

Religious belief is as diverse as the number of living species in amazon, many of them, I am sure, are yet to be discovered and evolving rapidly. It is impossible for a book to contain all the diverse beliefs in its scope. Of the three books above, I have only read Dawkins book and Dawkins clearly restricts his book to monotheistic religions that have a personal god as their central dogma. Still, diverse religious beliefs is a swamp with many lurking things that writers have to tread carefully. Anthony Gottlieb asks if any of the three books have stepped on a crocodile in this swamp.

One practical problem for antireligious writers is the diversity of religious views. However carefully a skeptic frames his attacks, he will be told that what people in fact believe is something different.
...
The World Values Survey Association, an international network of social scientists, conducts research in eighty countries, and not long ago asked a large sample of the earth's population to say which of four alternatives came closest to their own beliefs: a personal God (forty-two per cent chose this), a spirit or life force (thirty-four per cent), neither of these (ten per cent), don't know (fourteen per cent). Depending on what the respondents understood by a "spirit or life force," belief in God may be far less widespread than simple yes/no polls suggest.

The author draws useful lessons from the past, especially with the philosopher Hume who went about subtly undermining religion.

Hume sprinkled his gunpowder through the pages of the "Dialogues" and left the book primed so that its arguments would, with luck, ignite in his readers' own minds. And he always offered a way out. In "The Natural History of Religion," he undermined the idea that there are moral reasons to be religious, but made it sound as if it were still all right to believe in proofs of God's existence. In an essay about miracles, he undermined the idea that it is ever rational to accept an apparent revelation from God, but made it sound as if it were still all right to have faith. And in the "Dialogues" he undermined proofs of God's existence, but made it sound as if it were all right to believe on the basis of revelation. As the Cambridge philosopher Edward Craig has put it, Hume never tried to topple all the supporting pillars of religion at once.

The essay ends with a note that was music to my unbelieving ears.

Reviewing a large number of studies among some fifty countries, Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist at Pitzer College, in Claremont, California, puts the figure at between five hundred million and seven hundred and fifty million. This excludes such highly populated places as Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, and Nigeria, for which information is lacking or patchy. Even the low estimate of five hundred million would make unbelief the fourth-largest persuasion in the world, after Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. It is also by far the youngest, with no significant presence in the West before the eighteenth century. Who can say what the landscape will look like once unbelief has enjoyed a past as long as Islam's--let alone as long as Christianity's? God is assuredly not on the side of the unbelievers, but history may yet be.

More like this

Next week's New Yorker makes a point that I hadn't considered, perhaps because there is so much religiosity in America. In a review of recently-published books on atheism, Anthony Gottlieb writes: ...one can venture conservative estimates of the number of unbelievers in the world today. Reviewing…
Anthony Gottlieb has an excellent review of several recent books on atheism in the New Yorker. I especially enjoyed his comparison of David Hume and some of the more polemical atheists currently atop the bestseller lists: In 1779, a year after Voltaire died, that idea was attacked by David Hume, a…
The Economist, a right of center journal of news and opinion I find quite interesting (as do many other lefties), has noticed that atheism is big in the book market. Comparing Hitchen's book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything with Francis Collins's The Language of God: A Scientist…
Evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr has this lengthy essay in the current issue of The New York Review of Books. Officially it's a review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Joan Roughgarden's Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist, and Lewis Wolpert's Six…

Jonah Lehrer also blogged this over at The Frontal Cortex. I thought the positioning of Hume as a "kinder, gentler" nonbeliever was overdone; details are in my comment over there.

It is also by far the youngest, with no significant presence in the West before the eighteenth century.

In the West. But in India, the Carvaka goes back some 2600 years.

By Mustafa Mond, FCD (not verified) on 17 May 2007 #permalink

I found the article rife with disappointing straw man arguments. "Are we really going to tame the fervor of an extremist imam's mosque in Waziristan by weakening the plush-toy creed of a nondenominational church in Chappaqua?" I'm sure Gottlieb read the books mentioned in his ostensible review, so why he chooses to deliberately mistake their cogent and strong arguments for this imbecilic one is a mystery. He even suggests that religion can't possibly be responsible for recent crises such as, say, the Troubles in Ireland and the rise of Al Qaeda, since, as he puts it, "why did Al Qaeda not arise, say, three hundred years ago, when the Koran said exactly what it says now?"

Does anyone really think that's a remotely passable example of logical argument?

There are many problems with this article, but the fact that the author equates these outspoken (and in some if not all cases, pacifist) atheists with theists who advocate violence as a means to their ends is reprehensible. Gottlieb repeatedly refers to these atheists as "militant atheists".