Phil Nichols: Using 'New Atheism' to Misrepresent Atheists & Atheism

A popular tactic with critics of atheism and atheists is a clear refusal to engage atheism directly. Rather than address what atheists say and the criticisms they offer of religion, some religious theists make up new categories of atheism to attack as straw men. Most popular are so-called "militant" and "fundamentalist" atheism. Those trying to give the impression that they are more reasonable and moderate, though, typically focus on "New Atheism."

The term "New Atheism" appears to have been coined by Gary Wolf for an article in Wired magazine. Wolf seems to have only meant it to describe the increasing self-assertiveness of some atheists today and the unapologetic nature of their atheism — and to that extent, the term might be considered justified. Many critics of atheism, though, invest the label with everything they don't like about atheists. The goal, then, appears to be to shut down the self-assertiveness and unapologetic atheism in favor of a quiet, meek, and submissive atheism.

Phil Nichols writes:

Previously, Christians shared the common ground of critical thought with atheists – both groups essentially denied the existence of countless gods, Christians just denied the existence of one less God than atheists. However, New Atheism rejects not only the existence of that one God, but also respect for the existence of God.

Phil Nichols wants to count himself among those who engage in critical thinking, but he effectively shuts himself out of that group by a simple maneuver: merely rejecting the existence of this god, that god, or even all gods does not automatically qualify a person as a "critical thinker." Critical thinking is not defined by the conclusions one adopts, but by the methods one uses to reach their conclusions.

This means, of course, that merely being an atheist doesn't make a person a critical thinker. I've encountered plenty of atheists who were very bad when it comes to using basic logic and critical thinking skills. It also doesn't mean that all Christians are critical thinkers — this is especially true when it comes to the subject Phil Nichols raises, the existence of other gods. Christians reject the existence of other gods on faith, not on logic and reasoning.

This also means, therefore, that Nichols is wrong when he claims that Christians and atheists used to share any "common ground of critical thought." This assertion is important, however, because by pretending that atheists and Christians used to be united and on the same side in some fashion, it is much easier to attack atheism and atheists today. It's a simple "divide & conquer" strategy: get people on your side by telling them pleasing things about themselves, then separate them from the rest by telling them that they don't share the targeted groups' horrible qualities. I don't think that it's an accident, though, that the targeted atheists are only distinguishable, if at all, by being public and vocal about their atheism.

Before moving on with that thread in Nichols' essay, though, I must express my utter bewilderment at the last sentence in the above quote: what does it mean to reject "respect for the existence of God"? I'm not even sure what it would mean to respect the existence of God, but I'm pretty sure that anyone who disbelieves in something also doesn’t "respect" its existence (since such a person doesn't believe that there is an existence here to respect). I don't believe in the existence do Darth Vader or unicorns, and I also don't "respect the existence" of them. Looking back at the history of atheism and freethought in America, I can't think of any time when any prominent atheists advised that nonbelievers "respect the existence" of the Christian god. Whatever it is that Phil Nichols is concerned about, it's not something new to atheism and atheists.

[T]he mindset of New Atheism is not one of reconciliation and dialogue, but rather one of unwavering proselytizing. In a sense, New Atheism is very similar to the dark side of Christian fundamentalism: both views are more concerned with conversion than understanding, both views are not interested in making friends with people who think differently, both views are stubborn and unyielding, and both views are not concerned with grace.

It's important to recognize that Phil Nichols does absolutely nothing to justify or support these claims about New Atheism. Like I said, people invest everything they dislike about atheism into the concept "New Atheism," but they also create massive straw men by making up things that don't exist, or simply attributing to atheists generally behaviors that are only true of a few scattered atheists. There is also a significant double standard, since an emphasis on "conversion" rather than "understanding" is by no means a characteristic of "the dark side of Christian fundamentalism." On the contrary, that has been a standard feature of orthodox Christian for centuries.

Simply attacking atheists generally, though, might encourage nonbelievers to be even more self-assertive. This is why it's important to focus attacks on militant atheists, fundamentalist atheists, or New Atheism. This has the effect of associating all the awful things with atheists who are most famous for nothing more than publicly and forcefully saying things which atheists have always said. In the end, then, the effect is to suppress the very public atheism that is getting more common today.

So how are critically thinking Christians supposed to react to New Atheism? This is the question that is plaguing many Christians at the moment – and will continue to plague more Christians as the movement continues to expand.

The problem for Phil Nichols is that so-called "New Atheism" isn't saying anything about religion and theism which atheists haven't been saying for years — even decades. Advances in evolutionary biology and neuroscience has made a few slight changes to some arguments about the nature of religion, but ultimately there is nothing very "new" about atheism today. This means that all of Nichols' hand wringing about how Christians will respond to atheists is easily answered: the same ways they always have.

New Atheism has provided a service to us as Christians. It has unknowingly challenged us to stop living static lives and to begin living as we were intended to live. New Atheism has called for an end to religion as we know it, and maybe they are right to do so, because religion as we know it is not religion as it was intended. We are not called to live bound by incentives of politics, but by love, grace, and humility. This is true religion.

After spending so much time complaining about how awful and intolerant New Atheists are, when we reach the end Phil Nichols ends up admitting that their critiques of religion actually have more than a little bit of validity to them. We have to remember, though, that none of these critiques are new and that few religious theists have met the "challenge" given to them. If Nichols doesn't realize that the critiques aren't new, that's simply because he hasn't been paying attention — which is, in fact, one of the most common ways religious theists have always responded to atheists.

Phil Nichols ends, though, with a massive error: there is no "true" religion, there is just religion. Some religions are more violent than others and some are more irrational than others, but all religions are equally religions. It's popular, for though, liberal and moderate believers to insist that only their liberal and moderate beliefs are "true" religion, while fundamentalists and extremists are "false" religion — or at least religion that has been infected with outside political and social ideologies.

It's correct, of course, that fundamentalists and extremists have incorporated various political and social beliefs from outside their religion into their ideology. The error which people like Nichols make is the failure to recognize that they do it as well — and in fact that all religious believers do it. There is no "pure" religion that is completely disconnected from politics, economics, and other ideologies. Religion is part of culture and, as such, is strongly influenced by culture. Christianity in Amrtica is not the same as Christianity in Nigeria — nor can it be. There is, however, no "pure" Christianity independent of American or Nigerian culture against which both can be compared, measured, and judged.