I feel that I’ve missed the boat somewhat here, as this is a conversation I had way back in the days of my first steps in the skeptical movement. But it came to mind because I had a question that I wanted to pose to the Atheism+ people, and I just discovered that their website no longer exists! I am disappointed, because I feel that their movement has a lot to offer atheists, humanists and skeptics. I hope that they still exist in some incarnation, because it would be a shame to lose a more compassionate atheist angle. As well as that, they seemed to be the ones actually doing critical thinking about social and skeptical matters, unlike the self-proclaimed rationalists who would tear them down at every opportunity that they see someone tapping on their glass case of privilege.
|But the conversation I had was about the dichotomy of New Atheism vs. Atheism Plus. And, you guessed it, all dichotomies are false dichotomies. Most of my social circle would err more toward the New Atheist end of the spectrum, and I do criticise their arguments and pose questions that their brand of atheism doesn’t always have a satisfactory answer for. They’re free to do the same in turn for my atheism, but very often they would come at the argument from an extreme position “calling out” the other end of the scale – assuming that I was querying their viewpoints because I was some fringe lefty.
But this is not an either/or problem. I find much of what the New Atheists say in terms of ideas to be useful, and I find the way it is presented to often be extreme and repugnant. In terms of Atheism Plus, I find their philosophy far more welcoming and pragmatic, yet the practice is often exclusionary due to its adherents jumping to conclusions about atheists who don’t exactly fit their mould.
Very often, New Atheists make sole claim to all that is reasonable and rational, and then jump on whatever bandwagon is steamrollering itself over an oppressed minority (because down with social justice – booooooooo!). But I’ve found Atheism Plus to be too defensive when genuine questions are asked. I know that this stems from the phenomenon of “Just Asking Questions“, which New-Atheist trolls are very good at, but it unfortunately spills over into suspicion of people who are genuinely curious.
|In my response to the question of whether one is “better” than the other, or whether they can even co-exist, I sort-of said that I thought it was the wrong question. Because I do think that they can co-exist, but more than that, that they aren’t mutually exclusive philosophies. There are going to be disagreements between these groups on certain, nay many, points. But that’s half the fun of thinking skeptically – you ask two intellectuals a question and you get five different answers. Atheism, skepticism & humanism aren’t any different, and it shouldn’t be seen as a problem if there are disagreements, or divergent viewpoints on some issues. I suppose we come into difficulties when extreme views are involved; say a New Atheist with anti-feminist views wants to “debate” Atheism Plus, well that’s obviously going nowhere. But then we get into absolutes again – many progressive people would say that to be anti-feminist is a right-wing and backward ideology, but the counter-argument is that to be feminist is an ideology (no, no, no, it isn’t – but that’s how the arguments go).|
So I suppose the problem here is that there are people who decide that they are very much on one side or the other, and that they quite like there being two “sides”. New Atheism and Atheism Plus can coexist in the same brain, so I don’t see why there’s so much unease at them existing in the same movement. If we adhere to one school of thought too rigidly, or define it too narrowly, we’ll come up against conflicts both internally and externally. It is one thing to be able to hold two contradicting ideas simultaneously (which we can all do), and another to simply hold an array of beliefs that have no contradictions, but come from different sources. Um, isn’t the second one actually easier…?