The New Republic

You love this phrase "illiberal atheists," as you call the so-called "new" atheists in the interview.

This is the article in which you made that argument:

www.tnr.com/.../story.html

The article had some interesting points, but its thesis -- that "new" atheists, because they write books advocating atheism, are somehow illiberal -- is preposterous.  My response to the article:

I'm an atheist and bought and read all of these books. Although I enjoyed them all, I didn't think they were all perfect. The criticism in this article, though, is pathetic. It does seem as though Linker hasn't read the books. (To equate Dennett's style with Hitchens's, as someone else pointed out, is laughable.) Linker starts with a disingenuous exercise: He divides atheists into a "liberal" and an "illiberal" camp, and places the new crop of atheist writers firmly in the latter. But illiberal atheists past, we're told, advocated ransacking churches and abolishing religious liberty. The supposed "illiberal" atheists present advocate no such thing. If Linker could cite a single passage where DDHH advocate restricting religious liberty at all, much less vandalism, he might have something. Of course he can't, because there are no such passages. Such would be directly opposed to these authors' worldviews. Tell Hitchens he's not a liberal, for example, and prepare yourself for some gin-soaked intellectual demolition. Or you could save yourself the bother and read anything he's written about anything. *** Linker acknowledges the central problem with his argument, more than half way through (in part 4): "In describing their atheism as illiberal, I do not mean to imply that the new atheists are closet totalitarians. On the contrary, all of them understand themselves to be contributing to the defense of freedom against its most potent enemies, at home and abroad." Well said. So what's your point? Linker's answer: "Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions." Here, Linker uses words -- such as "brutally," "intolerant," and "faith" -- without regard to what they mean. Yes, these atheists do, horrors, make arguments. (Which are not in any way faith-based, by the way.) What's more, they do so *publicly*! In books! Further, they have the unmitigated gall to hope to *persuade* people with their arguments! My God, to what depths will these thugs sink? And I haven't even told you the worst part: They use *colorful language* and sometimes even engage an *iconoclastic tone*! (These traits could also describe the brutal and intolerant staff of the New Republic.) *** The bottom line is that Linker is turned off by the tone and style of these atheists (to the extent he's read them or been exposed to their views). That's it. He certainly doesn't engage the merits of their arguments regarding the folly of faith. Except to get them wrong -- further evidence he hasn't read the books. The proving-a-negative thing, as others have pointed out, is thoroughly dealt with in at least two, maybe all, of these books. Atheists don't say "I believe there is no God" in the way religious people say "I believe there is a God." They say something more like "God's existence is as likely as Tinkerbell's," or "I'm a God atheist the way you're a Zeus atheist." Linker tries to disguise his crabby reaction behind a half-assed thesis that these authors are illiberal, but it holds no water.

- jhildner

February 4, 2009 at 11:13am