Julian Baggini Condemns the "New Atheists"

Baggini wrote "Atheism - A very short introduction."

Here's the essay.

Baggini makes some reasonable points. For example:

However, there is much more to religion to the metaphysics. To give a non-exhaustive list, religion is also about trying to live sub specie aeternitatis; orienting oneself to the transcendent rather than the immanent; living in a moral community of shared practice or as part of a valuable tradition; cultivating certain attitudes, such as gratitude and humility; and so on. To say, as Sam Harris does, that “religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time” misses all this. The practices of religion may be more important then the narratives, even if people believe those narratives to be true.

The new atheism has also, I think, created an unhelpful climate for atheism to flourish. When people think of atheists now, they think about men who look only to science for answers, are dismissive of religion and over-confident in their own rightness. Richard Dawkins, for example, presented a television programme on religion called The Root of all Evil and has as his website slogan “A clear thinking oasis”. Where is the balance and modesty in such rhetoric?

For me, atheism’s roots are in a sober and modest assessment of where reason and evidence lead us. That means the real enemy is not religion as such, but any kind of system of belief that does not respect these limits on our thinking. For that reason, I want to engage with thoughtful, intelligent believers, and isolate extremists. But if we demonise all religion, such coalitions of the reasonable are not possible. Instead, we are likely to see moderate religious believers join ranks with fundamentalists, the enemies of their enemy, to resist what they see as an attempt to wipe out all forms of religious belief.

As with Mr. Smythe, the hardcore atheist character in The End of the Affair - and isn't it interesting how dated the "New" Atheists really are? - whose merciless atheistic arguments persuade Sarah to believe that there must be something in religion if it is hated so much, sometimes the unforgiving arguments of the New Atheists convert people the wrong way. I know that listening to Dawkins' attack on anyone who challenges Darwinism makes me want to say "Thou almost makes me a Creationist" just because being on the same side as a a pompous ass like him seems aesthetically unpalatable.

Vox Day, who outplays the New Atheists at their own game, discusses the "error theory" conundrum of the New Atheists, i.e., how can smart people believe things that New Atheists say that only dumb people could possibly believe?