Over the last three or four years, numerous books, articles, and speakers have referred to a movement which they call the 'New Atheism'. The term is unflatteringly applied to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and other atheists who stress the importance of empiricism and science, as well as the dangers they perceive in faith and religion. The New Atheists may be contrasted to Bertrand Russell, David Hume, and other critics of religion who centered more on philosophical arguments and the social sciences to make their points. Like a broken record, theists associate the New Atheism with dogmatic certitude that is on par with (or even more fanatical than) their own. Dawkins and his fellow atheists are often labeled as the preachers, prophets, or leaders of the New Atheism, to further the indictment.

The purpose of this article is to examine these allegations and determine where the lines are, and what areas may be in need of improvement among today's popular atheist authors. There are some issues I agree with the New Atheists about, and there are some that I find to be weak in reasoning - however, this is not exclusively applicable to modern atheists. In every subject, there are experts who we find wonting in a few of their statements, and it is fairly common for us to even imagine better arguments that could have been formulated. No single person has all the answers. Just how new and distinct is the New Atheism?

I. A Brief History of Disbelief

Atheism has been around for several centuries, and is possibly as old as religion itself. For as long as there have been people to say, 'I believe in x', there have probably been others to reject the belief. The ancient Greek philosophers, such as Socrates and Epicurus, gave us some of the first written records of skeptical arguments against gods and religion. Later when the Christians, theologians, and religious officials developed some of their philosophical arguments for God, they were countered by several sources of opposition in their own day, and their arguments still continue to be addressed and refuted. Before the scientific revolution, philosophy and theology were the primary areas used for justification of religious belief, so it should be no wonder that atheism's past is more rooted in these subjects than the New Atheism is.

Once science began to reveal more of our world and universe, the Christians and theologians turned to it for justification of their faith. Even though the church condemned Copernicus and Galileo for their dissolutions of dogma and doctrine, the two scientists saw their work as an affirmation of design in our existence. As more and more believers resorted to use science in support of their religion, it was only logical for the dissenting voices of atheism to shift their focus as well. Philosophy is no longer a major part of people's lives, nor is it the source for most of the current arguments for God. Today it is mainly observational; 'I look at the intricacy and order in the universe, and think it had to have come about by a designer'.

Thus the New Atheists have changed their tone in reaction to the shift in tone initiated by religious believers. Understandably, some of these atheist authors who are participating in the New Atheism are not so qualified in philosophy, theology, or sociology, because they are scientists who are responding to recent controversies such as intelligent design. However, there are also some members of the New Atheism movement that do have their education in philosophy, like Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, for example. Criticisms that the New Atheists are missing the point or are not qualified to speak on religion are entirely without merit. Some of their arguments may not be to the taste of everyone, but responsible critics must address and refute the claims, not simply dismiss them because they question the individual's credentials. The New Atheists are simply responding to the updated and revised tactics of the New Christians.

II. Framing a Label

I will be one of the first to admit that Christians are brilliant about marketing with clever language. Adopting as simple a slogan as 'teach the controversy' has fooled thousands of Americans into thinking there is a real debate over evolution among the scientific community. Likewise, the 'New Atheism' label has become synonymous with fundamentalism, fanaticism, elitism, and even with racism in some cases, largely due to the efforts of believers and the media, who leapt to portray these individuals as negatively as possible. The books of Dawkins, Hitchens, and the other New Atheists had not even been shelved for a day before believers jumped on the bandwagon with books of their own, as well as internet sites, newspaper reviews, videos, and so on - all cleverly named to attract attention, like The Dawkins Delusion, The Devil's Delusion, etc (we saw this absurd kind of frenzy before, with reaction to The Da Vinci Code).

Of course, it should come as no surprise that Christians are skilled at manipulating opinion in their favor, and it's not just because they populate most of America. Christians are selling a product, they are salesmen/saleswomen for the gospel. Their scriptures instruct them to regularly give their sales pitch (called witnessing; see Matthew 28:19-20) to whomever they can, making it as accessible, convincing and infectious as possible (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). Since they are in the game of sales, they recognize that they are competing with others for the 'souls' of human beings:

This is why many Christians are so eager to demonize dissenters and throw around loaded labels like 'the New Atheism' [Chris Ray at TheEdger.org has written a hysterical article on this]. What may seem a harmless means of identification is actually a way of demeaning a viewpoint. The term implies that atheism has had to regroup and reorganize its views, due to defeat or waning credibility. It is a subtle way of casting suspicion on something. Why was Protestanism not referred to as New Catholicism or why is Evangelical Christianity not referred to as New Christianity? It may be that the term 'New Atheism' was only coined in reaction to the surprising commercial success of the books/authors, but even if that were the case, religionists still stepped in shortly thereafter to associate New Atheism with all kinds of social and psychological ills.

Atheism is simply the rejection of theism, it is not a belief system or religion [see my articles Is Atheism a Religion? and What Can Atheism Offer Us?]. The New Atheists are no less atheistic than the ones from centuries past. The term suggests that there are some tenets or doctrines familiar to the New Atheism that the 'old' atheism lacked, yet any such kind of philosophy or belief is dependent on the individual and is not inherent to atheism. Theists and the media identify people like Dawkins and Harris as New Atheists to further their preconceived notion that atheism is a hypocritical, fundamentalist religion. Like most politicians, devout believers engage in their smear campaigns to distract the attention of the undecided and thereby ensure that their products are not overly questioned or subjected to too much scrutiny.

III. Disagreement is OK

I have known a few atheists who preferred use of the New Atheist label to distinguish themselves from the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, and the others. Perhaps they bought into the characterization of those authors as 'fundamentalist atheist preachers' and wanted to distance themselves to appear more reasonable and friendly to theists, but the more frequent explanation I find is that atheists who try to separate themselves from these New Atheists do so out of disagreement. Now, I do disagree with a number of the things said and proposed by Dawkins, Hitchens, and the others. I do not think moderate or liberal believers are just as terrible as the fanatics - on the contrary, I think we ought to befriend them and work together to combat the viruses of literalism and irrational thinking. Teaching a child that they will burn and be tortured for all eternity unless they obey God is both villainous and psychological abuse, I do agree, but I am not as hasty as Dawkins in wishing to impose myself onto other people's children.

We are allowed to disagree with one another, without resorting to demeaning labels for differentiation. If we permit division over minor disagreements, atheism will look more and more like religion, with multiple 'denominations' for various opinions. I know atheists who wish for the United States government to declare us a religion, so that we can gain tax-exempt status, and I know others who wish to pass legislation prohibiting the spread of religious propaganda. I disagree strongly with both views, but I am not going to find some way of distancing myself from these people simply because we don't see eye to eye on everything. In my opinion, many religious believers already have such skewed perspectives of atheists that we should unite and try to remind them that we do not all believe the same things, and we will not fall neatly under the labels they want to apply to us.

If you choose to isolate yourself from other atheists that you disagree with, you might soon find yourself all alone in a category reserved exclusively for you. I'm willing to bet that even those atheists who so dislike the New Atheists can think of at least a few things argued by Bertrand Russell and David Hume that they disagree with. Hume did not have much of an answer to the design argument and Russell was not very eloquent in justifying his own moral philosophy, but those minor problems were just simply beyond their qualifications or knowledge. Such inconsequential details should not provoke division, because they are not implied in atheism, and - more importantly - there are good reasons not to make petty distinctions.

IV. A Common Enemy

Atheism, new and old, has always had a common enemy in irrationality. Practically all of the well-known atheists of history have recognized that one useful way to combat this enemy is through science and education. Of course, religionists will always have metaphorical interpretations to fall back on as science advances, but even the philosophers and psychologists in atheism realized how the persistence of science meant the retreat of religion from many areas in the past. This has become more of a focal point for atheists today because of the assertions by many Christians and apologists, that science supports their literalist, bible-based worldview. In making these claims, believers almost always overlook important evidence or even completely reject/redefine what science actually tells us. This type of 'war on science', fueled by bronze age myths, is exactly the kind of irrationality that the 'old atheists' opposed and spoke so fervently against.

Conversely, many of the New Atheists do acknowledge the role of philosophy and sociology in the conversations of atheism and religion. Richard Dawkins responds to several of the famous philosophical arguments for God's existence in his book, The God Delusion, and Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett touch on some of them in their own books too. Their answers obviously do not satisfy everyone, since you can pull up a review of any one of their books almost at random and find a critic complaining about the omission of certain philosophers, arguments, or retorts. However, as someone who was formerly a Christian apologist, I noticed early on that few religious believers flock to the 'intellectual giants' that many critics bring up. Atheists, and all those who critique religion, are most likely to respond to the common arguments and statements made by the majority of believers. Fringe arguments, no matter how intelligent and well-reasoned they may be, are not reflected in the opinions of the average Christian.

Personally, I find it all the more interesting to get a biologist's view on certain philosophical matters like the suggestion of design in our universe or exquisite order in our biology. I was also intrigued to read Christopher Hitchens' book, god is not Great, to get a glimpse of religious beliefs and events across the world, through the eyes of a journalist. These men may not be that informed on philosophy, but they can offer a different side of approaching the issues, from alternative perspectives that most philosophers are not qualified in. No one person can be qualified in all the areas relevant to what they discuss, nor should they have to be. Even Christian apologists are not qualified in all the fields of archaeology, history, geology, anthropology, or the countless other disciplines they profess to have knowledge in.

Any position that rejects theism is a position of atheism, regardless of reasons, popularity, or time period. There is no such thing as 'new' atheism, because atheism has not changed, nor can it change without ceasing to be atheism. It is bad enough that so many people apparently misunderstand and/or abuse the 'atheist' label even by itself, without the additional confusion or subtle, derogatory implications contained in 'New Atheism'. If we profess a desire to lessen or eliminate irrationality and unreasonable propositions, this senseless labeling and mudslinging should be the first to go.

1. Hume, D. (1748) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
2. Russell, B. (1957) Why I Am Not a Christian. New York: Simon & Schuster.