Changing Of The Guard

The term "New Atheism" is quite a misnomer, and is regarded by many atheists with disdain. It is generally used to denote the rise of an "in your face" activist movement of unbelief created largely by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett in the wake of 9/11. To give them credit, they were responsible for bringing a lot of atheists out of the closet. Reading their work and watching their debates was an important catalyzing factor for my transformation from an agnostic "live and let live with religion" kind of person to a more confrontational atheist. I think that I speak for most who share my lack of belief in the supernatural, when I say how annoying I find that a lot of "defenders of religion" make personal slants against these atheist "celebrities" as arguments in their favour, as if all atheists singularly conform to the same set of principles and opinions that they may have.

To be fair, they have garnered a massive following. It's not like there aren't a large number of people who swear by everything that they say. But it is very short-sighted to assume that all atheists think in the same way. In fact, if you take any two atheists, the only thing that you can be certain is common between them is their lack of belief in any god. Personally speaking, there is so much I would disagree with some of these famous atheists. And this difference has become even starker in recent times. Speaking of similarities though, what is immediately noticed when seeing all of these big names is one similarity: they are all middle-aged white men. This predominance is through no fault of their own, it merely reflects the more general tendency of world pop culture. And in the decade since they burst on the scene, it really didn't matter much. They were dealing with issues that cut across all groups within atheism. They were providing the voice of reason against the rise of fundamentalism: from the Islamic terrorists to the Christian right in USA and parts of Europe. Atheism has grown in society ever since science has been consistently advancing our understanding. The spike in growth over the course of the 1st decade of the 21st century, initially at least, seemed to be in the white Western male demographic. Even if that weren't true, the vocal atheist community (online as well) tended to be largely white male. It used to be a boys' club during that period. 

In the last 4-5 years, or so I think, some important changes happened. The demographic has been expanding. Women, people of color (who would otherwise have already been atheists in large numbers) have made their presence felt in the atheist "community" (I will use that term loosely along with "movement." It's just to denote the overall existence of several atheist groups and forums, not a consolidated singular entity). This has happened at the same time the focus within these groups has expanded from merely battling the forces of religious fundamentalism, to providing meaningful reason-based solutions for the world. One would assume that the coincidence of these two events is perfectly timed to advance towards common goals. However, with different demographics come very differing points of view. As I noted before, a lot of these atheist groups and communities were used to being boys' clubs. And let's just say, misogyny is not uncommon. Over the course of time, prominent speakers/bloggers/scientists such as Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Greta Christina have brought out issues of sexism within the atheist community, but the response has been simply disappointing. And a lot of times, some of the atheist "celebrities" have been guilty of misogynistic comments and actions themselves.

A few years ago, in response to Rebecca Watson's vlog speaking about her gender-based experiences at an atheist convention, Richard Dawkins wrote a patronizing "letter" satirizing her "imagined slight" as opposed to the REAL oppression faced by Muslim women in the Arab world. More recently, Michael Shermer has been accused of sexual assault (non-consensual sex with a woman who was under the influence of alcohol while Shermer wasn't), and again, Dawkins has been quick to offer tacit support by questioning the testimony of a drunk woman. Also, there is Sam Harris who responded to the "Why aren't there a lot of women atheists?" with a statement that women tend to be "nurturing" and not immediately attracted to "intense critical thinking," and yes, they also find him "unsexy" (Video here.) When questioned about his responses, his excuses ranged from "it was a joke" to an allusion that the other side was being too politically correct and trying to brush aside what - according to him - are obvious differences between male and female brains. (Actual peer-reviewed research suggests no such purely biological factors exist, and that it has a lot to do with cultural divisions between the sexes.) Dawkins, again, joined in defense of Harris, and they belittled all criticism as "fishing for offense."

Cases like this are not uncommon. These "stalwarts" brand any criticism of them - especially by feminists - as malicious and attention-seeking. Then there is a sort of "coterie" of bloggers and writers who are friendly with famous atheists, that immediately jump to their defense. After them come a set of very annoying YouTube atheist stars that will post half-baked arguments, mostly regurgitating the excuses presented by their champions. After this layer, come the more general rabid fan club members, who are the source of some of the most vile attacks: abuses, rape threats, exposing personal information online, baseless attacks of their looks, etc. That takes care of the misogyny part. Then there is the cultural-racial divide. I haven't seen any particular instances of systemic bias against black people within the atheist community, but a lot of prominent atheists are absent on conversations of race, especially in America. Atheism in India and the rest of Asia seems more or less confined to its own group. Dealing with Islam is more of a grey area, because on the one hand, you have Muslim extremists who frequently hide behind "Islamophobia"/racism to shield themselves from thought-provoking criticism. But at the same time, one can't help but feel that a lot of these prominent atheists display very neo-conservative tendencies when dealing with terrorism, and tend to ignore some very important geo-political factors. Yes, Islamic terrorism does get its inspiration directly from quotations in the Quran and the Hadiths; however, ignoring the effects of Western imperialistic aggression in the Middle-East is over-simplifying the issue. 

As the topics of discourse within the atheist community widen, it seems that we are heading to a turning point of sorts. This extends to the scientific community at large, which also faces several gender/racial problems. Let's make one thing clear:  these problems are in no way unique to the scientific community at all, they are a reflection of our society in general. However, that can't be an excuse. As the promoters of rationalism, it is imperative that we look within and examine criticism of our approach. These atheist speakers have been very successful in debating creationists, religious apologists by bringing out their sound arguments while the other side resorts to denial, defensive posturing, and outright reactionary dismissal. It is curious to see that as we have moved towards a more diverse atheist community, and these old, narrow views have been challenged, we are seeing almost the same reaction from these old men: denial, defensive posturing, and outright reactionary dismissal.

I prefer to keep an optimistic view of things. Collision is inevitable when any avenue visited by a limited demographic opens to a wider audience. Ultimately, progress is the only way to go. In time, I hope these non-white atheists and feminist speakers and bloggers will be able to make an impact and cause some introspection within the atheist community. These people have experiences and ideas that may not have been brought up for discussion previously, and they should be embraced, not instantly and automatically dismissed. Even with the big names, the problem is that they all share a background that has kept them ignorant of the subtle gender and racial issues. But ignorance is not an excuse in this age when it is so easy to obtain different points of view from people and change your outlook accordingly. For people in science, it is a joy to have their mistakes pointed out. It's just sad to see that a group of people who promote reason fail to use it when it comes to reevaluating their own worldview. Instead they aggressively defend their flawed views with loose rationale, and the kind of empty arguments that they would otherwise point out in others. These people can keep denying the problems, but ultimately others will have progressed to a more advanced state of discussion, and they will be left scampering to catch up, not quite unlike the religious people who have to reconcile the morals in their outdated books.

The line it is drawn

The curse it is cast

The slow one now

Will later be fast

As the present now

Will later be past

The order is rapidly fadin’

And the first one now will later be last

For the times they are a-changin’ 

- Bob Dylan