TIINA MAHLAMÄKI Religion and atheism from a gender perspective* In August 2010 the Finnish Broadcasting Company I also discuss the seemingly indisputable fact which YLE, summarising the results of the World Values the stat istics point to; namely that women tend to be 2005 survey, released them under the headline ‘Re- more religious than men and men tend to be more ligion is a women’s issue’. Is atheism and secularity often atheist than women (my examples are most- then, by contrast, an issue for men? It is tempting to ly from the Finnish context). I also present some answer the question positively when one looks at the models of explanation which scholars have applied to names of the new atheist bestselling authors, or the these problems. names in the index lists in the back pages of books First of all, I’ll clarify my own standpoint regard- with reference to atheism, as well as the names of the ing the issue. I’m interested in the ways in which the researchers into atheism and secularity: they tend to atheist critique has become a visible part of the pub- be male much more often than female. In this paper lic discussion of religion. As an ideological statement I will examine the ways in which both religiosity and and a form of irreligiousness, atheist discourse pro- non-religiosity and atheism are gendered phenom- vides interesting data for the study of religions. Al- ena. I also look at feminists’ views on religion by though atheism and secularity are not institutional- pointing out in which ways they intersect with the ised forms of religion, they can be seen as ideologies opinions of the new atheist texts.1 Because both (sec- because they are not merely describing the world; ond wave2) feminists and atheists consider religion they also want to change it (Davie & Woodhead 2009: from a relatively narrow point of view, I’ll bring out 525). For my part, I do not position myself as an athe- the ways in which the contemporary study of reli- ist, nor as a member of any religious community. gion defines, sees and studies religion and religious- In Finland, at least, some scholars of religion ness, while it takes the concept of gender seriously. are taking atheism as a standpoint for studying and teaching comparative religion. The critique of re- * An earlier version of this artice was published in ligion, as being the mission of the new atheist dis- Finnish: Tiina Mahlamäki 2011. ‘Uskonto, uusateismi course, is imparted by them as a foundational trait ja sukupuoli’ [Religion, new atheism and gender]. within comparative religion: the less religion, accord- In: Jussi K. Niemelä (ed.), Mitä uusateismi tarkoit- ing to this view, the better off the world is. They hold taa? [What New Atheism Means]. 150–74. Turku: that the task of comparative religion is to prove the Savukeidas. 1 With the term ‘new atheist’ I refer to well-known and arguments of religious traditions to be unreliable, distinguished writers such as Richard Dawkins, Sam false and untrue. According to this line of reasoning, Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. religions are regarded as harmful both for individuals I’m aware that they do not think or write identically, and societies (see, for example, Visala 2010: 31). but they join in a common and quite similar under- I don’t perceive this to be the task of comparative standing of the concepts of religion, religious belief religion, but rather agree with Teemu Taira’s (2003: and religiousness. 60–1) proposal that scholars of comparative religion 2 By this I mean the Women’s Liberation Movement and feminist research up until 1980s. The focus should examine religions in their social contexts (re- (concerning religion) was on revealing the patriarchal ligion as it is lived and experienced, at a certain time structures of the world religions and the multiple and place). The critical study of religion should mean ways in which religions have subordinated women. that we take seriously the concepts of power, class, 58 Approaching Religion • Vol. 2, No. 1 • June 2012 race, ethnicity, and gender, which in many ways are turies. Within the metaphor of conflict3 historical connected to the practices of religion. This raises events tend to be perceived one-sidedly and simplis- important questions: who speaks for whom, whose tically; the history of science and religion shows that voices are privileged and whose are silenced? (Beattie the roots of conflicts (or events identified as conflicts) 2007: 7.) are multidimensional disagreements on, for instance, I’ll start with a short tour of the relationship be- power, authority and resources (see e.g. Brooke 1991, tween religion and science, as it seems to constitute Ferngren 2002). Similarly, the concrete conflict be- an integral part, both of the new atheistic discourse tween science and religion at the end of nineteenth and the gender problematic. century was not born, according to Tina Beattie, from ‘a struggle between religious and scientific ways of explanation’ but merely from a struggle of power and The war between science and religion – a strong and authority between men of science and men of God. durable metaphor ‘The triumph of science over theology required the The conflict between religion and science can be seen total discrediting of theological knowledge.’ (Beattie as an underlying basic principle in the texts of the new 2007: 20.) This active discrediting is still being con- atheists, in which the purpose is very often to dem- tinued by the new atheists. onstrate how religious beliefs are false and incorrect. When the metaphor of the conflict between sci- Religion and science are seen as separate and oppos- ence and religion is used, it does not concern all sci- ing arenas. Religious beliefs and scientific knowledge entific knowledge and research but, more specifically, are perceived to be mutually exclusive, and their con- the natural sciences (in Finnish there is no linguistic temporaneous existence is at variance both in society separation between the natural sciences and other and in the minds of individuals. This attitude has its disciplines: one word, tiede, fits all disciplines from roots in the Age of Enlightenment, but it became vis- the arts and humanities to social sciences and the ible and clear cut in the latter part of the nineteenth natural sciences). It is not unproblematic to trans- century, when science, as we have come to know it, fer the contemporary notion of science to history – developed. During that period science emerged as an there was, for instance, no distinction between the independent domain within society, and to work as Cre ator and His creation within natural philosophy; a scientist became a real profession. The modern sci- the scholars of natural philosophy studied both. (See entist had to build his identity by clearly separating e.g. Brooke 1991: 6–7; Ferngren 2002: xi–xiv.) Nei- himself from the area of religion. Formerly, however, ther was the other side of the conflict, religion, not science and religion had not occured in separate do- just any religion, but historically the church, and for mains, but were integrated in the sphere of natural the most part the Catholic Church. The new atheists philosophy. Western science or natural philosophy use the word ‘religion’ mostly to refer to the estab- was born within Christianity (see e.g. Brooke 1991). lished church of their own country, or more often, As Gavin Hyman (2010: 103) puts it, ‘it seemed en- to conservative and fundamentalist forms of Chris- tirely natural that a scientist should also be a priest’ – tianity and Islam. In its modern form the metaphor and it seemed even more natural that both scientists of conflict has a slightly different configuration; and priests were men. The identity building project within the new atheist discourse (natural) science is of the scientist was definitely a male project, as it was seen to overpower all religious traditions and beliefs, not possible for women – with some exceptions – because it offers neutral and justifiable knowledge, to enter into academic education or to concentrate while religions, even liberal and moderate ones, are on doing research until the late nineteenth century seen as a platform to more fundamentalist views (see, (see Beattie 2007) – at least in Finland, women who for example, Pyysiäinen 2011). The metaphor of war wanted to begin university studies had to request a has thus returned and serves the new atheists on their special dispensation on the grounds of their gender. historical crusade against religions, ultimately in or- At the same time, at the end of the nineteenth der to exterminate them. century, the metaphor of a conflict or war between science and religion rapidly evolved. Religion (the 3 The origin of this influential and enduring metaphor church) was perceived as the active and aggressive lies mainly in two books: John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science party in the conflict, and was accused of having pre- (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of vented the development of science in previous cen- the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). See also Brooke 1991 and Ferngren 2002. Approaching Religion • Vol. 2, No. 1 • June 2012 59 At the core of the conflicts of the late nineteenth century, as well as at the core of the new atheism today is Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selec- tion. The model is conveniently transferred from biology to other disciplines in order to explain, for instance, the evolution of societies – but it has also been used as a justification for eugenics and racism (see Brooke 1991: 275–320).