On the New Atheists

I’m not sure that’d really work out. Especially since in America, quite a lot of agnostics (and oddly, if I remember the Pew poll, a number of atheists!) have theistic/deistic leanings. And I hesitate to consider agnostics and atheists, particularly new atheists, as the same ‘religious movement’. The gulf there seems large, and express atheists a tiny minority of that group.

That seems like a very hard sell. When Anthony Flew converted, the popular atheist response did not seem to be a shrug of shoulders and a “Well, that’s basically the same thing as atheism”. Deism certainly isn’t the same as pantheism, and even pantheism can get dicey (Neo-platonism seems vastly closer to theism or at least an Aristotilean deism than pantheism. And the pantheism of hinduism in turn seems vastly closer to theism of a Berkeleyan stripe than Spinoza’s pantheism.)

Keep in mind, according to the Pew poll of 2008, declared atheists and agnostics reported at 1.6% and 2.4%. By far the greater category was the reporting of ‘no religion in particular’. And about half of the ‘no religion in particular’ considered religion somewhat important in their lives. So it seems odd to file everyone in this group as all being part of the same ‘religious movement’.

Michael, I completely agree. Most of these questions are pretty big and vague. I also agree that there are plenty of atheists and theists who in terms of the content of their belief are pretty similar even if the self-identification labels are different.

I have read studies that when the “no religion in particular” group is examined closely they are de-facto atheists rather than just non-denominational types. So my understanding is that the atheist percentage is around 10%. (Atheist here specified broadly)

Joseph, in one sense I agree. The term will always be somewhat vague and ambiguous. Further the biggest grey area will always be those who deny a personal God but see something at least quasi-transcendent. The obvious example are Buddhists who reject a lot of the more religious trappings of Buddhism, as many Zen Buddhists do. But I think you could look to Spinoza or the Stoics where, to my eyes at least, the distinction is pretty blurry. Likewise a traditional Deist who has some being that sets everything into motion but a being with no anthropomorphic properties and who exists of logical necessity seems pretty indistinguishable from an Atheist to me who says all that exists and is real is the matter of the universe and the ultimate laws of physics that puts things into motion.

So while I concede all this I’d merely turn the tables and note that for any religious category you have similar problems. What about the person who self-identifies as a Catholic but doesn’t believe God exists? What about the person who self-identifies as a Catholic but thinks all faiths are about on par.

This is ultimately a problem of loose categories. But just because the categories are loose and break down upon close examination doesn’t mean they aren’t useful. If nothing else one can appeal to a similarity argument. That is the categories merely represent similar views and not some absolute set property.

The bigger complaint in surveys like this is, to my eye, the divide between self-identification and what someones actual beliefs are. But then that’s an old canard I have against psychology and social science.

Joseph, I think we’re both saying the same thing. I’d just say that there are Mormons who don’t want to be thought of as “people who would agree with Glenn Beck” so I don’t think the difference is quite as severe as you make it. But it does highlight that some groups have a group identity stronger than others. So I don’t mind calling myself Mormon despite what I might think (positively or negatively) about Glenn Beck, Orin Hatch, Harry Reid, Mitch Romney or Jon Huntsman. That’s because the group means much more to me than what any individual means and so the meaning has a different sense.

There’s simply no such group identity with most atheists. So you get classic atheists who have of late been getting quite upset with the New Atheists. Then you have people who because of all the turmoil don’t want to be identified with atheists and call themselves agnostic not because of excessive doubt but because of group identity politics.

As to “traditional deist” I think that’s still rather complex. But I wasn’t necessarily thinking just of the United States at the time of Paine. Your point about the range of possibilities is definitely something I agree with though. So once again I think we’re saying much the same thing but perhaps focusing in on different aspects. But I should be careful as I must confess to not knowing the details of what all the deists in 18th century America believed. I do recognize that there was a wide range of beliefs.

To your point about Mormons and the “ultimate transcendent” your point is well made. In certain very narrow ontological senses I think Mormons have more in common with atheists than most other Christians. (Not all do, and some Mormons have attempted to bridge ontological divides with Evangelicals although I personally think this incorrect) If the evolution of the “Christian” God by the time of Augustine is a mixing of old more anthropomorphic views strains of religion with the transcendence in Greek philosophical thought at the time I see much of Mormon theology attempting to reinstitute the divide. That’s is I don’t mind talking about ultimate ontology I just don’t think it is talking about God. So Mormons are in a sense the polar opposites of liberal Christians or deists in that we think all that matters and is real about God is what they discard.