Taking Offense At The New Atheists
January 31, 2008
It’s interesting so many people take offense at the writings of the “new atheists” — Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens seems to be the only one of the four new atheists who might actually be saying things just to get a rise from his audience.
The other three — each of whom has been criticized for intentionally provoking Believers — seem merely to be three intellectually honest men reasonably stating what they believe to be true, and not the rabid dogs of instant myth. If they have given anyone offense — and they have indeed — it’s most likely because the offended person simply can’t stomach anyone disagreeing with him or her about religion.
To take offense simply because someone disagrees with you is folly. People do it, but not when they are being wise or intellectually honest. For dismissing someone’s arguments by taking offense is no more than a cunning way to avoid fairly addressing those arguments.
It should be beneath us.
My StumbleUpon Page
January 31, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Here’s a link if anyone is interested in listening to the four of them talk. And I certainly can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t be interested in that!
January 31, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Richard Dawkins is so mild mannered that I cant believe anyone really takes offence – maybe it’s just a matter of “the truth hurts”.
I posted on this topic a few weeks back if your interested:
http://oliverbenen.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/taking-offence/
January 31, 2008 at 11:26 AM
@Webs: That’s an interesting link! Thanks!
@Oliver Benen: Welcome to the blog! It seems we agree that Hitchens is the only one of the “Four Horsemen” who might be saying things just to provoke offense. Thank you for that link!
February 1, 2008 at 8:28 AM
There’s also a very good discussion of this perennial topic going on at Friendly Atheist.
And I agree with Oliverbenen on Dawkins. Aside from being a bit tone-deaf and also British, he’s a very mild-mannered person, hardly a firebrand-throwing meanie.
February 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Thanks for the link, DOF! I agree with both you and Oliver about Dawkins. It’s ludicrous that so many people dismiss him as rude and mean.
February 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Of this group, I’m partial to Dan Dennett who’s interest in religion as a natural phenomena and thus amenable to scientific study appeals to me. The other three often come off (unintentionally except in the case of Hitchens) as simply calling all religious beliefs and the people who hold them stupid.
I also get miffed when they lump all religions together or ignore everything except Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Buddhism for example is quite different.
February 7, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Have you read the book, The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day. If so, what do you think about it?
February 8, 2008 at 12:56 AM
@Trinifar: Sam Harris comes across to me as someone who is very open to spiritual or mystical experiences. He’s been criticized for that by more hard-core atheists. You point out something that I think is illuminating — the use of the word “religion” by these folks to refer mainly to the Western/Middle Eastern religions. There is almost no discussion of Eastern religions to be found with the New Atheists.
Welcome to the blog, Farah! I haven’t read the book. Could you do me the favor of summarizing some of the main points?
February 11, 2008 at 4:05 AM
[...] about it too. Reactions from the believing side -being religious- provoke wonder among atheists. At Café Philos, Paul Sunstone asks why ‘new atheists’ like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins offend the [...]