6 - Harris, and Hitchens, and Dawkins! Oh My!

Lions, and tigers, and bears! Oh, my!  - The Wizard of Oz

In this post: Who are the New Atheists? What do they say? What do they get right, and what do they get wrong?

In those countries in which fundamentalism lost state sponsorship and had to stand unarmed and naked in the snow, that belief system became simply a religious option, open to rivalry and criticism from science, literary analysis and common sense. One result was diminished focus on theism and atheism in the last half of the 20th century. Then, in the early 2000s, three scientists/writers/speakers, Sam Harris (born 1967) a neuroscientist, Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), a literary critic, and Richard Dawkins (born 1941) an evolutionary biologist, became the voices of what was dubbed the New Atheism. A number of other gifted atheist scientists, including Daniel Dennett, joined the group. Their stated purpose was to inform the people of the world that only the ignorant believe in God, that only science can produce true knowledge, and that scientific knowledge is incompatible with belief in any form of extranatural agency. As an example of the purpose and attitude of the group, I quote Sam Harris’ brag: If anyone has written a book more critical of religious faith than I have, I’m not aware of it. 

In spite of their great popularity and stated purpose, the goals of the New Atheists are not altogether clear. To help bring about a world that is free of religion? To sell books? To satisfy a religious-like need to be missionaries? If the need is simply to ensure that everybody knows their “truth,” then how different are they from Christian missionaries whose motive is to ensure that everybody knows their “truth?”

The New Atheists have been very successful at bringing the atheist-theist debate to the public and at stating the atheist case forcefully and compellingly. In doing so, they have taught their lay audience much about science and have provided insights into the dangers of religious fundamentalism. However, along the way, they’ve also managed to convey some false implications, including, notably:

1. Any trained scientist knows there is no god;
2. The very few who don’t know that, well, they are off their rockers. 

What does the data indicate on this topic? A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, found that 51% of scientists believe that God or some higher power exists. 

The 51% of scientists who are not atheist can be further broken down: 33% say they believe in God and 18% say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

When that 33% declare they believe in God, they are probably referring to the Biblical God. Despite the huffing and puffing of the new atheists, they seem to believe that there is, in fact, a God. Those who say they believe in “some higher power” are most probably referring to some sort of deity other than God that created the universe, the god of the rational theist. We can look further into that deity later in this blog.

The point I am making is that approximately half the population of scientists do not believe that the only force involved in the creation of our Universe was a random explosion of a singularity. Rather, they believe that there was some sort of agency that created the Universe and at some level of resolution manages it through its natural laws that are in some ways defined as a probabilistic direction, with some purpose.

It may be that the number of scientists who are not atheists would increase if more of them were aware that other options than the Biblical God existed on the theist palette.

While reducing the options for a god to only the fundamentalists’ God, the New Atheists have also managed to totally confuse the issue of a god with religion.

Does religion really represent an outmoded, useless, even harmful way of thinking, with no place in the 21st century? Is theism, in any form whatsoever, indicative only of ignorance or wishful thinking? Does science provide all the tools required to lead a satisfying life, leaving no room for religion?

I believe that religion, once it totally sheds fundamentalism, has much to offer, and that without it our species would never have gotten as far as it has. It provides insights into life, much understanding of why we exist, what we have evolved for, and what we can contribute to our universe and our species.

In fact, the Pew Survey results suggest that no matter how powerful science is, there may be limits to the types of knowledge it can advance. Science deals primarily with issues of “what” and “how”, and seldom deal with the worldview questions such as “why.” Humans have the need to ask — and find answers to — “why.”