Not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism. The earliest known English record of the term “anti-theist” dates back to 1788, but the first citation of the word can be found in the 1833 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “one opposed to belief in the existence of a god” (italics mine). In other words, while an atheist believes there is no god and so follows no religion, an anti-theist opposes the very idea of religious belief, often viewing religion as an insidious force that must be rooted from society – forcibly if necessary. In my opinion this is correct. The attitude of the new atheists is characterized by exactly that spirit of persecuting fanaticism which they find so repulsive in other sects. Nietzsche said that those who fight monsters should take care lest they become monsters themselves. I think he was right. alternet.org/belief/why-richard-dawkins-sam-harris-and-new-atheists-arent-really-atheists
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:57:13 +0000