1. The New Atheism[s]
Personal reflections by John Wilkins

2. What is Atheism?
Personal position: practical atheist and philosophical agnostic
Historically, atheism is “not of an approved religion”
Privative atheism: not-theism (the broad sense)
NOT “there is a god”
Positive atheism: no-theos-ism (the narrow sense)
“There is NOT-god”
Philosophically: primarily about knowledge

3. What is the New
Atheism?

4. Doctrines of New
Atheism
Same as the old atheism, but primarily social
Often conflates broad with narrow versions, however,
unlike Russell’s version
Is “scientistic” (positivist)
Called “militant” and”fundamentalist” by religious critics
to make it a parallel with religion
Me: NAism is not like a religion intellectually, but it is
socially, or tries to be

5. Accommodationism
The new atheism is generally exclusivist:
One cannot rationally believe in religion and science simultaneously
One does not need to debate religion, only show that science fails to
support it (scientism)
Those who assert that the religious can be scientifically literate are of the
“Chamberlain School of Evolution” (NOMA)
Agnostics are “namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid
fence-sitters”, “cowards”, and lack commitment (mischaracterisation of
agnosticism)
Seem to think that accommodationism is the view that science can be
tailored to suit religion; in fact we argue the exact opposite: religion has
to come to terms with actual science (as it always has)

6. Elevatorgate
Rebecca Watson (“skepchick”) at the World Atheist Convention
in Dublin June 2011
Approached at 4am in an elevator by a convention attendee
for coffee in his room
Gave a mild mannered online video asking skeptic men to
show a little sensitivity, as she felt sexualised and threatened
Response was appalling: attacks on her personality, calls for
rape, even Richard Dawkins said he didn’t see the problem
Continues today, two years later

7. Who said what?
Here’s what Watson said:
“Just a word to the wise here, guys. Don’t do that. I
don’t know how else to explain how this makes me
very uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out: I
was a single women in foreign country in a hotel
elevator with you, just you, and I—don’t invite me
back to your hotel room right after I finish talking
about how it creeps me out and makes me
uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that
manner.”

8. Who said what?
Here’s Dawkins’ response:
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade,
and . . . yawn . . . don't tell me yet again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and you
can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and
you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the
suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what
happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not
exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no,
and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up,
or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard

9. Who said what?
Comments include:
“The whiny little girl who complained about the man in the elevator
needs to get a taste of real life. She needs to be slapped into
reality. Send the snot to the Middle East and make her live the life
of a Muslim woman for a year or two. Maybe that will make a real
woman of the spoiled bitch.”
She should be in fear of being raped and then she’d really have
something to complain about
Etc.
It’s fairly clear that new atheism is not immune from standard
behaviours of humans, including privilege

10. Tribalism
Need for a nonreligious community, but how?
Can you based a community on what the people aren’t?
Costly signalling hypothesis
Marketing campaigns:
Skeptics: been around since 500BCE or so
Humanists: been around since 1500 or so
Brights: Dawkins’ attempt to rebrand skepticism and atheism
Atheism Plus (new New Atheists): “plus social responsibility”

11. Conclusion:
Positivism redux
New atheism is basically Comtean positivism
History is progressive, and there are winners and
losers
Anything that isn’t science is nonsense
Religion is unmitigated evil (Comte would have
disagreed)
Need for community based on positive values, not
negative denials

12. Links
http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/
http://www.the-brights.net/
http://atheismplus.com/
http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/09/why-atheism-plus-is-perceived-as.html
My posts:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/08/01/what-is-atheism/
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/12/30/atheism-and-agnosticism-again/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/definitions-of-atheism/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/07/atheism-agnosticism-and-theism-the-landscape-part-1/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2007/06/what_is_an_agnostic_by_bertran/