6. Atheism in the 21st century

‘Atheism in the 21st century’ explains how, at the dawn of the 21st century, the position of atheism was fairly stable around the world. Early in this century, however, Western atheism suddenly came to much greater prominence. The new, assertive movement that was emerging was labelled 'the New Atheism'. The New Atheists were, for the most part, strongly critical of both moderate and fundamentalist religion, dismissive of the idea that they should avoid offending the faithful, and convinced that religious belief was profoundly irrational. They also claim that religion is harmful. Indeed, an objection to religion popular among the New Atheists is that most extremism is motivated by religious faith.

Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

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?

Varieties of Atheism in Science

Not all atheists are New Atheists, but thanks in large part to the prominence and influence of New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, New Atheism has claimed the pulpit of secularity in Western society. New Atheists have given voice to marginalized nonreligious individuals and underscored the importance of science in society. They have also advanced a derisive view of religion and forcefully argued that science and religion are intrinsically in conflict. Many in the public think that all scientists are atheists and all atheist scientists are New Atheists, militantly against religion and religious people. But what do everyday atheist scientists actually think about religion? Drawing on a survey of 1,293 atheist scientists in the U.S. and U.K., and 81 follow-up in-depth interviews, this book explains the pathways that led to atheism among scientists, the diverse views of religion they hold, their perspectives on the limits of what science can explain, and their views of meaning and morality. The findings reveal a vast gulf between the rhetoric of New Atheism in the public sphere and the reality of atheism in science. The story of the varieties of atheism in science is consequential for scientific and religious communities and points to tools for dialogue between these seemingly disparate groups.

Why Study Atheism among Scientists?

New Atheism—a provocative and derisive anti-religious form of secularity—has established a central place in public thought through public intellectuals and scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. Science figures prominently in New Atheism, due in large part to such New Atheist thought leaders. And while the New Atheists have played an important role in giving voice to marginalized groups and promoting science, the rhetoric of New Atheism in the public sphere departs from the reality of atheism among day-to-day scientists. By studying what everyday atheist scientists in the U.S. and U.K. actually think about religion, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the varieties of atheism in science and the science-faith interface more broadly.

From Rhetoric to Reality

What are the implications of our results for scientific and religious communities? Drawing on the core empirical patterns discussed in the book, this chapter explains how the rhetoric of New Atheism espoused by celebrity scientists does not square with the reality of atheism experienced by atheist scientists in the U.S. and U.K. Religious communities may not be aware of atheist scientists’ actual views of faith, scientism, their moral orientations, or—for atheists who grew up religious—the reasons why they abandoned past faith. And, there is more common ground between the scientific and religious communities than either group is aware, offering fertile ground for dialogue. A diverse array of stakeholders should be involved in such pursuits, including national organizations, universities, churches, and science communicators. The success of these efforts have implications for public confidence in science and diversity within the profession.

The Christian Question

Roland Boer’s five-volume work, On Marxism and Theology (2007–2013), explores the connections between Marxism and Christianity. In this interview, Boer speaks about some of the pressing issues and knotty questions raised in the series. Beginning with questions of Boer’s intellectual and political formation, of previous work on the Marxism–Christianity link, and contemporary claims about the return of religion, the discussion moves to the treatment of religion by Marx and Engels, by key Second International thinkers, and within Russian Marxism. The interview then turns to the Western Marxist tradition and the importance of Ernst Bloch and Theodor Adorno in Boer’s work. Responding to a final set of questions, Boer reflects on post-secularism and the new atheism, ethics and grace, and the contemporary struggle over the Christian legacy.

Revelation and the new Atheism

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.