Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism. A Critical Reading

2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 433-454
Author(s):  
Francisco José de Jesus Oliveira
Think ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Peter S. Williams

With the publication of The God Delusion (Bantam, 2006) Richard Dawkins became enthroned as the unofficial ‘Emperor’ for a cadre of writers advancing a rhetorically robust form of anti-theism dubbed ‘The New Atheism’ by Wired Magazine contributing editor Gary Wolf. Many have cheered Dawkins and his court, seeing in their writings just what they long to see. For, after the fashion of the fairy-tale Emperor's fabled new clothes, the ‘new atheism’ has seen naturalism wrapping itself in a fake finery of counterfeit meaning and purpose.


2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amarnath Amarasingam

The term ‘‘new atheism’’ has been given to the recent barrage of anti-religion and anti-God books written by Richard Dawkins (2006), Sam Harris (2004, 2008), Christopher Hitchens (2007), Daniel Dennett (2006), and others. This paper contends that one of the fundamental arguments put forth by the new atheists — that religion poisons everything or that religion is responsible for much of the evil in the world — falls victim to one of the best established theories of interpersonal and intergroup relations in social psychology: the fundamental attribution error. Insights gleaned from social psychology are especially useful for critiquing the new atheism. Instead of simply arguing that the new atheists ‘‘over-generalize,’’ social psychological studies on the nature of individual and group attribution provide the tools needed to launch a more substantive critique.


2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 778-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Schulzke

AbstractThis article discusses the political implications of the new atheism movement that has been popularized by writers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. New atheism is largely defined by its political goals, yet it has received relatively little attention from political theorists. To the extent that scholars have commented on new atheists' political thought, they have generally misinterpreted it and presented it as being intolerant. This article will argue that new atheists' attack on religion is largely motivated by their desire to defend a liberal view of politics and liberal values.


Author(s):  
James E. Taylor

This chapter contains a critical discussion of what three New Atheists—Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens—presuppose about divine revelation. Though none of these authors discusses this concept directly, their explicit remarks about alleged divinely authored texts are based on presuppositions about what a genuine divine revelation would be like if God existed. These explicit remarks are contained in their content- and origin-based arguments for the conclusion that no book (Bible, Qur’ān, or Book of Mormon) was authored by God. The former arguments emphasize allegedly problematic textual inclusions and omissions and the latter arguments stress the allegedly problematic role of humans in the production of these texts. Criticism of their presuppositions focuses on problems with their hermeneutical assumptions and exegetical practices and also on their failure to consider the possibility of progressive revelation, dual (divine–human) authorship of the Bible, and alternative divine purposes and strategies for communicating with humans.


Author(s):  
Julian Baggini

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction discusses the case for atheism. Atheism is often seen as simply a rejection of theism, but it encompasses so much more. Atheists are typically naturalists, who believe that meaning and morality are possible in a finite, natural world. ‘New Atheism’, a powerful new movement in atheism in the early 21st century, driven by books from authors such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, has left a legacy. There is an important question to consider: whether East Asia has been historically atheist or not. Atheism can be located in recent European history. What is the position of atheists around the world today?


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-267
Author(s):  
Jonathan Wright

Manhood was a complex social construct in early modern England. Males could not simply mature or grow from boys to men. Instead, they had to assert or prove they were men in multiple ways, such as growing a beard, behaving courageously in battle, exercising self-control in walking, talking, weeping, eating, and drinking, pursuing manly interests, exhibiting manly behaviors, avoiding interests or behaviors typically ascribed to women, marrying a woman and providing for her physical, sexual, and spiritual needs, and living and dying as a faithful Christian. Once a male became a “man” in the eyes of others, his efforts shifted from “making” himself manly to maintaining or defending his reputation as a “true man.” All men could undermine their manhood through their own actions or inactions, but the married man could also lose his reputation through his wife's infidelity. Numerous literary husbands in early modern literature live anxiously with the knowledge they might suffer a cuckold's humiliation and shame. Matthew Shore, who “treasures” his wife to a fault in Thomas Heywood's two-part play Edward IV, is an exceptional example of such a husband. This critical reading of Edward IV explores the complexity of manhood in Heywood's day by showing various males trying to assert or defend their manhood; explaining why husbands had reasons to fear cuckoldry; analyzing how Jane Shore's infidelity affects her husband; following Matthew Shore's journey from trusting husband to distrusting, bitter cuckold, to forgiving husband; and examining his seemingly inexplicable death at the end of the play.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document