Can We Hear the New Atheists?

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to grab the RSS feed or subscribe via email to receive updates on this topic and many others!

The Fall 2008 Issue of Religious Humanism (a semi-annual periodical) includes an interesting article concerning the rise of “New Atheism” titled “New Atheism (and ‘New Humanism’).” James Farmalant – the author of the article – offers readers many brief but enlightening excerpts from a few of the most recent and most popular works published by four leading voices of New Atheism. Who are these four leading voices? Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and, of course, Richard Dawkins. Why are works from all four excerpted and explained? Farmalant needs to substantiate the article’s concluding suggestion that this new atheism basically compliments rather than antagonizes “New Humanism.” The citations in the article are examples of this congruence. That said, Farmalant is also quick to point out larger issues specific to New Atheism that could be benefited by a broader and more expansive approach.

Farmalant, for example, when discussing Daniel Dennett’s work in Breaking the Spell regarding the scientific understanding of religion as natural phenomenon that was perpetuated historically by cultural memes, cites James Brookfield’s critique of Dennett’s work.

James Brookfield, a Marxist reviewer of Dennett’s book, likes his “materialist approach but takes him to task for ignoring Marxist treatments of the history of religion. Brookfield says that Dennett’s analysis benefits from his use of a neo-Darwinian framework, but is too abstract, and could have benefited also from treating religion as a form of ideology rooted in economic relations in human societies. I think Dennett did take some of these factors into account when drawing upon Jared Diamond’s work, but that Diamond’s analysis itself is rather abstract and lacking in historical specificity characteristic of the best Marxist writing on religion.

So, it seems, Farmalent is indeed looking for points of congruence between New Atheism and New Humanism, and has indeed found them, but does not hesitate to point out a few of the more important philosophical and ideological differences existing between the two as well. Farmalant’s approach to the relationship shared between New Atheism and New Humanism is a charitable one, obviously. Instead of focusing completely upon negative and divisive differences, he majors on points of potential congruence while simultaneously celebrating the unique approaches inherent within each philosophy and how this uniqueness could positively benefit each philosophy. So far, so good. If only we all could dedicate ourselves to this sort of charity. The world would undoubtedly be a much better place.

That said, I have a few semi-relevant reflections.

1. What is Religious Humanism, anyway? If I were forced to accept a label it would be Religious Humanism, broadly. Specifically, I’d consider myself a Christian Humanist. What on earth does that mean? I’ll simply quote Gregory Wolfe, who explained Religious Humanism better than anyone I have read thus far in an editorial available online at IMAGE JOURNAL, titled Religious Humanism: A Manifesto.

What do I mean by religious humanism? The theologian Max Stackhouse recently provided a simple but suggestive definition. “Humanity,” Stackhouse wrote, “cannot be understood without reference to God; and neither God nor God’s revelation can be understood except through the lens of thought and experience.”

On the face of it, the term “religious humanism” seems to suggest a tension between two opposed terms – between heaven and earth. But it is a creative, rather than a deconstructive, tension. Perhaps the best analogy for understanding religious humanism comes from the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, which holds that Jesus was both human and divine. This paradoxical meeting of these two natures is the pattern by which we can begin to understand the many dualities we experience in life: flesh and spirit, nature and grace, God and Caesar, faith and reason, justice and mercy.

That, in a nutshell, is Religious Humanism. Religious Humanism neither ignores secular culture and its unarguable advances in the sciences and humanities and arts, nor does it ignore God. Religious Humanism is the term applied to the very demanding art of trying to reconcile evolving human knowledge with a perpetually mysterious universe laden with God’s revelation. Religious Humanism understands both science and revelation to be not only important in the larger scheme of humanity, but also completely unavoidable.

2. What is this “New Humanism” Farmalent is comparing and contrasting with/to New Atheism? This is not entirely clear to me. Is this “New Humanism” simply “Religious Humanism,” or is it an expression of “Secular Humanism” that includes intellectual, historical and scientific concessions for universal religious phenomena? These questions only raise more questions. If “New Humanism” is simply recapitulated “Religious Humanism,” and if “New Humanism” is an expression of “Secular Humanism w/ concessions for religious phenomenon,” then are we not talking about the same thing anyway, when we use the title “New Humanism?” After all, isn’t “Religious Humanism” built upon the same philosophical and scientific framework that Secular Humanism is constructed upon? Further, couldn’t someone like Dennett be called a Religious Humanist if his expression of Secular Humanism actually makes concessions for religious phenomenon? So, what is this “New Humanism,” exactly? It’s quite confusing, to say the least. This confusion of terms makes it fairly difficult to actually apply the congruence shared between atheist and religious humanists in an edifying and conciliatory way. I’m not saying it should not be applied; I’m saying that I’m not sure where to apply it.

3. Christians could learn something valuable from both Farmalant (his approach) and the “New Atheists” (their critique of our past expression) if only we would take the time and seriously listen to what they are saying. New Atheists represent a very, very large and growing group of diverse people. These people have much to say about the expression of God, religion, faith, and church that we – Christians – have perpetuated for the past few centuries. Their voice is an important one. They are our neighbors, brothers, sisters, moms and dads; they are our bosses, co-workers, teachers and leaders. Since when did listening to our critics – or our neighbors – become a spiritual detriment? Can we dispose of the visceral reactions long enough to sit down and listen to what these important people have to say? It may take a miracle for this to actually happen, and that is incredibly and devastatingly unfortunate. We fail. And please note, that we need not agree with all that Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and Dawkins are saying, and I for one do not, but a lot of what they are actually saying may have more to do with the false Deity we have created over the centuries than it does the God who is actually revealed to us through Jesus of Nazareth. These men – and others like them – deserve to be honestly and authentically engaged. They deserve an open listen. They may just be saying a few things that are true.

So, go and find, read, engage, contemplate and search. If God is God, he will be just fine and our expression of God will be better for it. Someone once said, “Any belief worth having must survive doubt.”

I believe that, 100%.

Related posts:

• Schleiermacher and Humanism

• Humanism and Postmodernism

• A Holy Blur of Sacred and Secular

• Be Heretics

• William Penn and the Quakers