Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, authors of Breaking the Spell and The God Delusion respectively, are perhaps most responsible for what is popularly called “new atheism”. With Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, they have added the concerns of atheist thinkers to popular Western discourse, unapologetically, with no sensitivity for the bruised feelings of theists. Perceived variously as rude, arrogant, unfeeling, or high-handed, their response is generally to point out that, when talking about ideas that are so important to humanity and indeed often dangerous to it, it’s best to leave the kid gloves at home.

The fact is, there is no way to politely point out that another’s views are absurd, irrational, and dangerous, and there is no way to sample the irrationality of religious belief without exposing it. The “new” aspect of atheism represented by this group seems a rather time-tested idea: argue well, with all reason, and refuse to accept illogical absurdities. Through their discourse, they are admonishing us not to retreat into niceties when it comes to certain taboo subjects, but to represent our arguments in the coolest, most reasonable way possible.

The response to this way of dealing with theism is predictable, and could be ramping up. In addition to claims of tactless injuriousness in the arguments of atheists, apologists for theism and religion are adding the element of alarm into the mix. New atheists are dangerous. Beware their ideas.

As usual, this comes when the realm of reasoned discourse has failed, and the only option left is the peddling of fear.

In Faith Attack, Clifford Goldstein, the rabidly fundamentalist Seventh-Day Adventist and former editor of Liberty Magazine, describes new atheism as an unprovoked assault on belief.

In usual style, he diminishes his own arguments with thinly disguised ad hominems; for example, he chooses to quote the word “intellectuals” when describing Dawkins-Dennett, Harris-Hitchens. But in his description of these men as harbingers of a kind of chilling philosophical fascist state, where he imagines the most provocative of their arguments having come to life as draconian law, he has chosen not to address the arguments themselves, but to assume their worthlessness by extrapolating an absurd scenario while making sure to add a healthy dose of fear-mongering along the way.

This is not a challenge to the arguments at hand, but merely a kind of red herring. Attractive though this vision might be to apocalyptic doomsayers and science fiction aficionados, it is a silly counter to very real concerns. One is happy to find that, ultimately, Goldstein does not even take himself seriously.

Fortunately, their views aren’t likely to become public policy anytime soon, and certainly not in the United States (after all, look how well they worked in the Soviet Union).

Here, and elsewhere, he can’t help but draw comparisons between an atheist argument and the Soviet Union. This tiresome trick is described by Alonzo Fyfe as The Hitler and Stalin cliché. It is just as unconvincing when issued by Mr. Goldstein as it is when trundled out by any other apologist lacking a cohesive argument.

Reflecting Dawkins’ assertion that teaching children about hell is a species of child abuse, Goldstein says the same about teaching children evolution, and telling them about the finality of death. This is particularly egregious, not just for the strident insult to the science of evolution, but to the twisted reversal of values that places more importance on selling an arbitrary fantasy to impressionable people, than familiarizing them with the reality of life in the universe.

Expressing dewey-eyed remorse that children might not be taught about their “origins” or “destiny”, and emoting over the fact that kids might be told they’ll never again see Grandma and Grandpa after they’re gone, Goldstein cannot bring himself to imagine that children are stronger than this. What has he to say about Dale McGowan’s daughters, who discovered both their fear of death and their victory over this fear at the same moment? About their ability, at ages six and ten, to understand and reject the argument of First Cause as a logical absurdity? Clearly Goldstein attributes no quality of intellect or reason to children.

By the end of the article, Goldstein ironically recognizes the counter-attack that will soon issue forth from the hard religious right.

[New atheists'] most damaging impact might be…the fertile fodder they provide the Christian Right, long trying to convince the flock that their religion is under attack by secular elites…[T]he extremism of the new atheists will only feed the extremism of the Christian Right, each side pushing the other further in a direction that neither needs to go.

Though there may be some truth to this, he seems to have missed the point that he himself is a carrier of exactly the same kind of fear-mongering these flock leaders would be guilty of. At least in the case of religious extremists, such a reaction is understandable. In Mr. Goldstein’s case, we can only guess that, for want of a cohesive and rational argument of rebuttal, alarmist calls about the falling sky is the only response left.

Argument and Debate, Atheism, Believers Argument, Atheism, Believers, Fundamentalism