The Ethics of Disbelief: What Does New Atheism Mean for America? An honors thesis for the Department of Religion Marysa E. Sheren Tufts University ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deep gratitude to Laura Doane and the generous donors who make the Tufts Summer Scholars grant program possible, and to Professor Elizabeth Lemons, who served as my mentor throughout my completion of the program in the summer of 2011. That summer of research was the time during which this project first took root, and I am so grateful to those who have taken an interest and invested in my research on New Atheism. TABLE OF CONTENTS The Ethics of Disbelief: An Introduction....................................................................... 1-10 Chapters Chapter 1: THE “SECULAR” AND THE “RELIGIOUS”......................................... 11-29 Chapter 2: IS RELIGION INHERENTLY VIOLENT?.............................................. 30-51 Chapter 3: RELIGION, NEW ATHEISM AND AMERICAN PUBLIC LIFE .......... 51-77 Looking Forward: A Conclusion .......................................................................................77 Bibliography .................................................................................................................iv-ix iii The Ethics of Disbelief: An Introduction Journalists have used the term “New Atheism” to describe a 21st-century movement spurred by the success of several non-fiction books. These books, authored by hard-line secularists and consumed by millions, have made a particularly large splash in the United States over the past five years, sparking a national public debate about God and religion. In this introductory segment of my paper, I will explain what distinguishes New Atheism from other kinds of atheism, and will identify the factors that have led the American public and mainstream media to interpret New Atheism as a “new” social and intellectual innovation. In other words, I will examine the unique features of New Atheism that render it a social movement rather than just a descriptive term for those who do not believe in God or supernatural forces. Additionally, I will argue that New Atheism is distinguished by a unique ethic of epistemology in which the moral status of science is high above that of faith, and religious thought is considered inherently problematic. In addition to providing an introduction to the ethics of New Atheism, I will go on in this paper to explore three major issues brought up by the movement. In Chapter 1, entitled “The ‘Secular’ and the ‘Religious’: Questioning New Atheist Categories,” I will discuss the New Atheist reliance on culturally bound notions of what constitutes the secular and the religious in an effort to challenge what I see as a problematic narrative of secular progress underlying New Atheism. Building on my critique of the secular progress narrative, the second chapter of my work will question the causal relationship that the New Atheist movement perceives between religion and violence, and argue that the phenomenon of religious violence is more complex than New Atheism suggests. Lastly, my third and final chapter will consider the implications of the movement for public life in the United States, and discuss its significance for the American traditions of pluralism and multiculturalism. The Formation of a Social Movement American atheists have long joined together and organized themselves to promote secularist values, but no group has ever garnered such attention and provoked such controversy as the New Atheists. For example, the American Humanist Organization, one of the foremost secularist organizations in the United States, was formed in 1941, more than half a century before the New Atheist movement came into existence (“Frequently”). American Atheists, another secularist organization, was formed after the 1963 American court case, Murray v. Curlett, which ruled against the mandatory recitation of prayer in American public schools (“About”). Groups like the American Humanist Organization and the American Atheists have played important roles in advocating for atheist rights, and have shared many of the concerns voiced by the New Atheists. So, we might ask ourselves: What distinguishes New Atheism? How has it become, as the mainstream media insists, a “movement?” Firstly, the New Atheist movement is not a cohesive organization. Rather, it is a term that journalists have employed to describe a specific breed of atheism expounded by such best-selling books as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett, Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith by Samuel Harris and god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, who passed away earlier this year after an extended battle with esophageal cancer, have been nicknamed “the four horsemen” [of the apocalypse]” by the mainstream media, and have become the public faces of “aggressive atheism” or “New Atheism” in America and England (Winston). The phrase “New Atheism” first appeared in Wired Magazine in a 2006 article that identified the four aforementioned 2 authors as “a band of intellectual brothers…mounting a crusade against belief in God” (Wolf). The article explains that part of what sets the New Atheists apart from other nonbelievers is their desire to convince non-religious audiences to take a stand against religion, rather than just abstain from participating in it. It explains, “[The New Atheists] condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking” (Wolf). So, we might conclude, New Atheism is “new” in several ways. Firstly, it is new in its insistence that religion is not just silly or incorrect, but also seriously dangerous. Secondly, it is new in its commitment to converting those not moved to action by their atheism to take a stand against religion and defend their right to criticize it. Thirdly, it frames atheism - the very state of disbelief - as entailing an active commitment to a set of ethical beliefs and obligations. A Word on Ethics Before I move forward, I would like to clarify what I mean when I use the terms “ethic,” and “ethics” in this paper. When I speak about ethics in relation to New Atheism, I refer to the way in which the New Atheists believe people should behave in order to help make the world a better place. In other words, ethical concerns are those that pertain to how people ought to act in the world. Furthermore, I do not make a firm distinction between ethics and morals, and believe that they both refer to the obligation to act in certain ways and not others, in the name of human peace and progress. What’s at Stake? As we have seen, New Atheism is about more than disbelief. It is explicitly about right and wrong, about the improvement of the world and the salvaging of innocents from the dangerous grip of religious thought. The strong accusations that the “four horsemen” wage 3 against religion have serious implications for law and public policy; they are accusations that are supposed to inspire action and instigate real change. Furthermore, the ethical commitments that the New Atheists hold are multifaceted. Of course, the New Atheists are concerned with upholding the basic rights of nonbelievers, but that is not their only concern. They also argue passionately that critical inquiry, empirical investigation and freethought be presented to children everywhere as virtuous. At the same time, though, they are also concerned with issues such as the Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, the traumatization of children by their religious upbringings and the violence undertaken by Islamic extremists. This is because they hold that religion divides people across national and ethnic boundaries and causes them to act violently towards one another. We will go on to discuss New Atheism’s ideas about religion and violence later on in this paper. Now, though, I hope to establish firmly that although the ethical concerns the New Atheists hold are many and varied, that they consider the promotion of the secularist worldview the antidote to the full gamut of problems caused by religion. Making note of its impassioned tone and almost devotional regard for science, some have posited that New Atheism resembles religion, perhaps even the “fundamentalist” strains of religion that it so deplores. A movement fueled by strong conviction, New Atheism sees its own prescription for salvation (or peace) as the ultimate one. In other words, it does not consider the possibility of “multiple truths.” Furthermore, New Atheism even concerns itself with the evangelization of its beliefs, as is evidenced by an internet forum intended to help “closeted” atheists “come out.” This website, entitled “The Converts’ Corner,” is sponsored by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Furthermore, as can be observed by the use of queer terminology around atheism and references to feminism, the New Atheists identify strongly with other marginalized social groups. They view the task of securing equality for 4 atheists as allied with and similar to the task of ensuring equality for various groups who have (and continue to) face discrimination and abuse by mainstream society. Later on in this work, I will go on to discuss in greater detail the meaning behind this identification, and the implications that it has for our understanding of New Atheism. In response to the critical characterization of New Atheism