Journal Article - Fundamentalist Atheism

7/31/2019 Journal Article - Fundamentalist Atheism

1/19

FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISM AND ITSINTELLECTUAL FAILURES

Jeff Nall

Comparative Studies, Florida Atlantic University

ABSTRACT

A new breed of atheism has emerged which seeks to obliterate religion:

fundamentalist atheism. Differing from more mainstream atheism,fundamentalist atheism has been fueled by a rise in the power of the Religious

Right in the United States, codified with the election of George Bush and his

subsequent support for various government sponsored religious initiatives and

the proliferation of violent organizations which often identify with a particular

religious sect. In addition to seeking to bolster secularism, particularly

principles of separation of church and state, appreciation of scientific truth, and

respect for fundamental human rights, fundamentalist atheists have grown to

perceive religion as a fundamental threat to civilization. In this paper I document

fundamentalist atheisms salient characteristics, specifically its tendency to

narrowly define and stereotype religion in order to bolster its claim that religion

is civilizations greatest threat. I make the argument that, because its

apocalyptical view of religion is based on faulty reasoning, fundamentalist

atheism, although a response to fundamentalist religion, constitutes a dangerous

intellectual failure within the ranks of atheism. Indeed, fundamentalist atheism

results in an illogically-founded fanaticism that pits itself against pluralism and

tolerance.

PERSONAL REFLEXIVE STATEMENT

As an atheist I have participated in and observed secular criticism of religious

fundamentalism, be it the Christian fundamentalism here in the United States or

Islamic fundamentalism abroad; however, I have become increasingly alarmed

with the fanaticism emanating from the secular/free-thought/atheist community.

As I argue in this work, fundamentalism is not a phenomenon limited to religious

communities. Indeed, just as fundamentalists exist in Christianity and Islam, afundamentalist doctrine is developing among a segment of the atheist


2/19

belief and has even gone so far as to support immoral, aggressive military

intervention against Muslims. Ironically, while atheist fundamentalists revere the

Enlightenment legacy of love of reason and critical thought, they have forsaken

the Enlightenments call to disdain blind-prejudice and fanaticism.

n recent years, a new breed of atheism has emerged which seeks to obliterate

religion. It differs, however, from more mainstream atheism. The

development of this particular strain of atheism has been fueled by a rise in the

power of the Religious Right in the United States, codified with the election of

George Bush and his subsequent support for various government sponsored

religious initiatives and the proliferation of violent organizations that often

identify with a particular religious sect. In addition to bolstering secularism,particularly principles of separation of church and state, appreciation of scientific

truth, and respect for fundamental human rights, some atheists perceive religion

as a fundamental threat to civilization.1 This kind of atheism can be described as

fundamentalist atheism.

Fundamentalist atheism is crystallized in the best-selling works of biologist

Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion 2006), writer Christopher Hitchens (God is

Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything2007), and philosopher Sam Harris

(The End of Faith 2004). In this paper I document fundamentalist atheismssalient characteristics, specifically its tendency to narrowly define and stereotype

religion to bolster its claim that religion is civilizations greatest threat.

Furthermore, I argue that, because its apocalyptical view of religion is based on

faulty reasoning, fundamentalist atheism, although a response to fundamentalist

religion, constitutes a dangerous intellectual failure within the ranks of atheism.

Indeed, fundamentalist atheism results in an illogical fanaticism that pits itself

against pluralism and tolerance.

Atheism by definition is not related to any particular ideology or belief.

According to George Smiths The Case Against God, atheism is not a positive

assertion of belief but rather is merely the absence of theistic belief (1980:7).

If we understand theism as belief in God, we should understand atheism as

no-belief-in-God (Smith 1980:8). He contends that atheism must be

distinguished from the positive beliefs atheists tend to develop. The atheist qua

atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of

atheist tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does notbelieve to

be true (Smith 1980:16).

When we examine atheism in its social context as well as its implementationin popular discourse we discover the concepts definitional objectivity is

HUMANITY & SOCIETY264

I


3/19

force facts to conform to their hypotheses despite obvious incongruities. While

Smith (1980) argues that atheism, in the purest sense of the term, is merely the

lack of belief in theism, atheism in contemporary use is often identified with an

ideology that attempts only to disprove the validity of theism but to eradicate allof its forms. Despite his effort to paint atheism as purely objective and non-

ideological, even Smith sees it as a world-saving vaccination. In doing so, he

presents some of the ideological underpinnings that have given birth to modern

fundamentalist atheism:

When used to eradicate superstition and its detrimental effects,atheism is a benevolent, constructive approach. It clears theair, as it were, leaving the door open for positive principles andphilosophies based, not on the supernatural, but on mans

ability to think and comprehendReligion has had thedisastrous effect on placing vitally important concepts, such asmorality, happiness and love, in a supernatural realminaccessible to mans mind and knowledge (Smith 1980:26).

Again, these statements betray attempts to distill atheism to mere objective,

scientific rejection of the supposed reality of God. Indeed, atheism shows itself

here as a fundamental reaction against supernatural theism and its perceived

detrimental affects on society.

Popular atheism as a social movement has gone beyond understandingatheism as only the non-belief in God. The most popular and ubiquitous value

popular atheism is beholden to is the First Amendments demand for the

separation of church and state. Both the American Atheists and the Freedom

From Religion Foundation have been built on the ideal of the strict division

between religion and government. We might call such atheists Separationist

Atheists. This ideal, which dates back to at least John Lockeironically a

progressive Christianis the fulcrum of the freethought movement. The

evolution of the militant, fundamentalist wing of the movement can be attributedto the successful growth and political and cultural influence of the Religious

Right. The entire movement has grown frustrated and fearful with President

George W. Bushs eight years in office. In those years atheists watched as

millions of federal tax dollars were funneled into religious programs. In

particular, the movement has sought to counter the Religious Rights influence

on civil liberties (attempts to ban gay marriage and eliminate abortion), public

education (demand for abstinence-only education, discrediting theory of

evolution, and the teaching of intelligent design) and history (the assertion that

the United States is a Christian nation).

Fundamentalist atheism then is a form of explicit atheism that defines religion

JEFF NALL 265


4/19

civilization, and, consequently, it must be eradicated. Fundamentalist atheism

marks a turning point in the history of the atheist movement because it seeks to

go beyond actively rejecting belief in God.

Fundamentalist atheism seeks to eradicate religion and anoint atheism as theonly respectable position on the question of religion for three reasons. First, the

emerging crusade is built upon an intellectual failure to accurately examine

religious belief and a tunnel vision assessment that sees religion as the principal

impetus for violence in the world. Fundamentalist atheism stereotypes religion as

inherently violent, and averse to critical debate, scientific development,

tolerance, and social advancement. Secondly, having treated the most extreme,

dogmatic, regressive, and fundamentalist forms of religion as the ideal and/or

eventual manifestation of all religious belief, fundamentalist atheists developed

the apocalyptical belief that world peace cannot occur so long as religion, the

root of human evil in this view, is not first eradicated. Finally, fundamentalist

atheists prescribe intellectual intolerance toward religious thought and belief.

Indeed, some fundamentalist atheists have called for an actual war on Islam and,

more specifically, an attack on Iran. These claims, however, are based on a

narrow analysis of the variety of religious beliefs and history of religious

violence.

Despite the incredible diversity of religious thought, even within individual

religions, fundamentalist atheists have undertaken a kind of fallaciousintellectual carpet-bombing of religion. Ignoring or dismissing countercurrents,

they base their definition of religion on the behavior and beliefs of a limited

number of believers who fit their stereotype-ridden model. As if trapped in a time

warp, they actively stereotype modern religious belief as if it had undergone no

change over the last 200 years. One objection fundamentalist atheists have to

religion is what they view as its eclipse of critical reasoning, which they blame

for causing so much global strife and retarding social and scientific progress.

This general attitude has allowed fundamentalist atheists to comfortably assaultreligion with broad, inexact critiques which are dismissive of the diversity found

in various religious traditions.

Not long after becoming chair of Brooklyn Colleges Department of

Sociology, Dr. Timothy Shortell fueled the ire of religionists when he unleashed

a barrage of ugly stereotypes in his online article entitled Religion and Morality:

A Contradiction Explained. The Christian news service Agape Press examined

the article and reported that the atheist professor had therein described religious

people as moral retards and said, Christians claim theirs is a faith based on

love, but theyll just as soon kill you (Brown 2005). Indeed, the piece was a

tirade of irrational generalizations brimming with fodder for religious



5/19

On a personal level, religiosity is merely annoyinglike badtaste. This immaturity represents a significant social problem,however, because religious adherents fail to recognize theirlimitations. So, in the name of their faith, these moral retards

are running around pointing fingers and doing real harm toothers. One only has to read the newspaper to see the results oftheir handiwork. They discriminate, exclude and belittle. Theymake a virtue of closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance.They are an ugly, violent lot (Shortell 2005).

Shortells stigmatization of all religion makes no attempt to differentiate

churches such as the United Church of Christ, which has made very public

efforts to open its doors to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community,

or other Christian groups that have disavowed intolerance and hatred. He alsoignores a long list of model examples of civil rights and peace and justice

activists including the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and former United

States President Jimmy Carter, to name only two. What makes Shortells

comments so problematic is the generality of the language he uses. A more

credible condemnation would have specified a particular religious group that fit

his characterization. For instance, few would argue the validity of applying

Shortells characterization to someone like Pat Robertson, who once called for

the assassination of Hugo Chavez, or to the now deceased Jerry Falwell, who

famously blamed gays and feminists for the September 11 attack. Instead,

Shortell offers a broad, inexact condemnation ofallChristians.

Just as religious fundamentalists assume one cannot both be an atheist and

ethical, in God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007),

Christopher Hitchens makes the flawed argument that one cannot be both

Christian and ethical. The irony, of course, is that atheists have successfully

shown that one does not need to be religious to be ethical. According to Hitchens,

one cannot legitimately lay claim to being a Christian if one behaves in a just,

equitable manner. Upon discovering virtuous religious persons who do not fit thestraightjacket of fundamentalist religiosity, Hitchens discounts their religious

character. He does so specifically with Martin Luther King, Jr. While some have

made the case that King is an example of a modern Christian humanistthat is

a Christian who was mostly interested with improving human life in the here and

nowHitchens attempts to deprive King of his Christian character and brand

him exclusively as a humanist. Hitchens tells us that King never hinted

that those who injured and reviled him were to be threatened

with any revenge or punishment, in this world or the next, savethe consequences of their own brute selfishness andt idit I l d t i l th

JEFF NALL 267


6/19

King was a humanist and explicitly interested in the wellbeing of those in the

here and now. The idea that he was not a Christian, however, borders on the

absurd. At the very least we know he strongly identified with Christianity and

participated in, indeed was tremendously influential on, Christian culture.Moreover, King was a Baptist minister from a long line of Baptist ministers.

Nevertheless, Hitchens writes when

Dr. King took a stand on the steps of Mr. Lincolns memorialand changed history, he too adopted a position that hadeffectively been forced upon him. But he did so as a profoundhumanist and nobody could ever use his name to justifyoppression or cruelty (2007:180).

Hitchens assumption is that if one lacks a desire to oppress or act cruelly, onecannot be a Christian. Such reasoning rigs the game in favor of the

fundamentalist atheists position from the start. If one is good, one is a secular-

humanist. If one is bad, one is likely religious in some way. According to

humanist columnist Wendy Kaminer, Hitchens suggestion that humanismis

responsible for all the good that men and women do, while religion, poisoning

everything, is responsible for evil seems a bit unfair (2007:43). She points out

the atheists claim that humanism is responsible for all of the good in the world

complements the tendency of believers to credit true religion for virtue, while

blaming false religions, or no religion for vice (Kaminer 2007:43). While

Kaminers generalization about believers, includes a category so vast it is

almost meaningless, her point is well taken. Hitchens definition of a Christian as

one who necessarily longs for revenge or punishment sides with a very specific

interpretation of Christian theology.

Another significant assertion made by fundamentalist atheists is that religion

intrinsically seeks to eradicate all contrary perspectives. InLetter to a Christian

Nation (2006), Sam Harris gives support to the condemnation of all religion by

concluding Christianity is predisposed to foment violence and intolerance.Marrying the violent attitudes of his detractors to their faith, he contends that

those who are murderously, intolerant of criticism are products of their

religion. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such

hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most

disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse (Harris 2006:vii).

Harris reasoning demands further examination. Is the ability to philosophize and

make excuses for immoral behavior proof that immorality necessarily draws

support from philosophy? Even if the answer is yes, does this mean we shouldeliminate philosophy? The same question could be asked of science. Most

i l h i h li i i h l k i hi ld i



7/19

JEFF NALL 269

believe in the literal second coming of Jesus. Additionally, other Christians have

a more humanistic belief that discounts the supernatural or at the least the

hegemonic ambitions of the sects Hitchens and Harris address.

Hitchens concludes that religion looks forward to the destruction of theworld (Hitchens 2007:56). In an attempt to psychoanalyze this motive, Hitchens

argues: One of the very many connections between religious belief and the

sinister, spoiled, selfish childhood of our species is the repressed desire to see

everything smashed up and ruined and brought to naught (Hitchens 2007:57).

We should not be surprised that Hitchens has embarked on a crusade to cure

society of religion since he contends that it is:

a truth that religion does not, and in the long run cannot, be

content with its own marvelous claims and sublimeassurances. It must seek to interfere with the lives ofnonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths. It mayspeak about the bliss of the next world, but it wants power inthis one (2007:17).

Here we witness fundamentalist atheisms creation of religion as a straw man.

Hitchens has not proved that religion has a death wish; he has merely identified

it with its most extreme attitudes, most irrational positions, and discounted open-

minded, freethinking believers as non-religious. While it may be true that some

religious individuals, or even perhaps entire sects, do demand that the world

conform to their ideals, to describe all religious beings as such is absurd.

Beyond their belief that religion necessarily sponsors violent behavior and

intolerance, fundamentalist atheists criticize religion for fostering the notion of

true religion, biblical literalism and dogmatic faith over critical thought. Harris

and Hitchens make no distinctions among different religious groups, sects within

particular religions, nor differences among individual religious thinkers. Time

and time again, Harris hones in on true religion and its incompatibility with

tolerance for divergent religious perspectives (2004:15). He says that the ideathat any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God

requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art. (2004:16).

Harris would find plenty of religious people to agree with him. In the Pew Forum

on Religion and Public Lifes recent study, 70 percent of Americans who identify

with a religious tradition believe many religions can lead to eternal life; and

more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that

there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern

that occurs in nearly all traditions.2

In an interview originally published in 2007Reverend Robert Chase, communication director for the United Church of Christ

(UCC) ll d th t f l i i th t li i f th


8/19

2008:174). But to Harris, not even the plurality of thought within various

religions debunks his understanding of religions violent impulse. The

moderation we see among nonfundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself

has evolved, writes Harris, it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blowsof modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt (2004:19). Here

we witness the meeting of fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist atheisms

narratives of absolutism, which justify their contentions.

By conceiving of religions such as Islam and Christianity as static entities

which possess and continue to possess an absolute, fixed, essential character,

both groups feel justified in contending that either the fundamentalist

interpretation of religion is true or fundamentalist atheism is true; there is no

middle way. Harris contends that religious moderation is the result of scriptural

ignorance (2004:21), appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to

fully submit to Gods law; and that religious moderates betray faith and reason

equally (2004:21). This oversimplification based on a grand assumption about

religions true character permits fundamentalist atheists to contend that all

religious paths lead eventually lead to religious extremism.

Fundamentalist atheism also fails to recognize that religion is not

monolithically averse to critical debate. Richard Dawkins argues that religion has

a propensity to develop into dangerous ideologies which take hold over

[p]atriotic love of country or ethnic group, because religious faith is anespecially potent silencer of rational calculation, which usually seems to trump

all others. Religion inherently discourages questioning (Dawkins 2006:306).

In contrast, Hitchens main objections to religious faith include its combination

of the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism as well as it being

grounded on wish-thinking (2007:4). According to Harris, The problem that

religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very

critical to be said about religious literalism (2004:20). Yet there exists a great

deal of evidence to the contrary.While there may be those who adhere to strict, literal interpretations of

religious scripture, Harris obfuscates the complexity of religious belief by failing

to address the many examples that contradict his characterization. According to

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, such

criticism tends to befuddle more than challenge many Christians. When

believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we

turn the pages: This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, its not

actually what I believe in (Quoted inAssociated Press 2007). Williams further

critiqued atheists for not realizing that Christians do support a religion based on

reflection and inquiry



9/19

JEFF NALL 271

The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connectwith the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency

most religions call God. Agree or disagree, but I would say tocritics, at least grasp that that is being talked about. Often theatheist seems to be talking about something else (Quoted inAssociated Press 2007).

Reverend James Rowe Adams, founder of The Center for Progressive

Christianity (and former reverend at St. Marks Episcopal Church, in

Washington, DC) echoes Williams sentiment. He contends that at least a

minority of Christians, from the beginning have opposed exclusive dogma that

limits the search for truth and free inquiry (Adams 2008:181). Indeed there is agreat deal of debate among Christians about how to read the Bible.

I think the biggest split in the Christian church today, thatscapital C across all denominations, is the split of Biblicalliteralism as opposed to a contextual understanding ofScripture. Once you start getting a literal interpretation, I meanyou could get crazy about thistheres symboliclanguageWhat we believe is that God speaks to eachindividual in the context of his or her own life (Chase

2008:174).

According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), Chase

potentially speaks for 5,700 UCC congregations around the United States and

over a million members. Indeed, UCC grew by more than 200 percent between

the 1990 ARIS and the 2001 ARIS reports.

Fundamentalist atheism has been particularly silent on the incredible changes

religion has undergone since the sixteenth century. Religion and disbelief in

heaven and hell are no longer mutually exclusive. Recent studies of religious

belief in the United States show that while one may describe ones self as aChristian, Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, or Jewish, a plethora of beliefs and

disbeliefs exist within each group. For instance, many may be surprised to learn

that not all within various belief traditions believe in Heaven. Those who do

believe in Heaven include 85 percent of Muslims, 84 percent of Protestants, 82

percent of Catholics, 51 percent of Hindus, and 38 percent of Jews. Fewer

believe in Hell: Protestant (73 percent), Catholic (60 percent), Jewish (22

percent), Muslim (80 percent), Buddhist (26 percent), Hindu (35 percent). One

of the key characteristics of fundamentalist atheisms intellectual failure is itsblindness to the evolution of religion (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

) h d i i h d ki i h b li


10/19

remained in stasis since the sixteenth century. Fundamentalist atheism, in short,

relies on an anachronistic understanding of religious beliefs.

Fundamentalist atheists complaint about religion fails to sensibly connect

with a large segment of the religious population. At times their critique, whichpurports to take aim at the entirety of religion, is flatly contradicted by the fact

that many believers exhibit doubt and critical thinking, reject Biblical literalism,

support pluralism and tolerance, and actively support projects to bolster peace

and pluralism on Earth. Moreover, not all religious believers desire spiritual

hegemony, nor do all Christians believe in the literal second coming of Christ.

While these stereotypes do, in fact, fit many fundamentalists, they leave a large

portion of the religious community untouched. They do not even attempt to

contemplate the existence of religious atheists.

FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISM AND ITS APOCALYPTICAL IDEOLOGY

Fundamentalist atheism concentrates on the most extreme forms of beliefs and

behavior, exalting fundamentalist religion as the pinnacle of true belief. This is

done to fit the facts to a grossly simplified thesis: that religion is the root of

human evil and atheism is humanitys only viable savior. This conclusion is the

basis for fundamentalist atheisms argument that the long-standing principle of

liberal tolerance of religious belief must be renounced. In doing so,

fundamentalist atheism exhibits an apocalyptic vision that we normally associate

with religious fundamentalism.

Like many ordinary atheists, fundamentalist atheists believe people are

naturally good, a nod to (optimistic) Lockean social theory as opposed to a

(pessimistic) Freudian or Hobbesian view of civilization destined for torment.

The corrupting force is ignorance, principally in the form of religion. Without

religion the world would be a kind of utopia where dogma would be a matter of

history and violence would be replaced by rationality. Here one begins to discernan apocalyptical ideology closely akin to religious millenarianism. Since religion

is the root of all human horrors, argues the fundamentalist atheist, it must be

destroyed to transform the world from one of blood to one of peace. For the

millenarian, perfect peace on Earth will not occur until Jesus returns and either

converts or punishes nonbelievers. For the fundamentalist atheist, the savior of

peace and goodwill will not greet the world until God and religion have been

evicted from its domain. This apocalyptic vision or ideology is indicative of the

fundamentalist nature of this brand of atheism.Just as some fundamentalist Christians believe perfect Earthly harmony will

t til J t t d b li d i h b li



11/19

view, religion is the source of the greatest violence in the world; and that

[m]ore people have been killed in the world for religion over any other reason

(Quoted in Dan Harris and Paul Beban 2007). While this statement ignores the

complex impetus for the worlds many conflicts, Gaylor clearly believes thatreligion stands in the way of world peace. According to Kelly OConnor, also

known as Kelly M, co-organizer of the atheist group, Rational Response

Squad, her group shares Richard Dawkinss and Christopher Hitchenss mission:

[T]he fact is that we all want to end religion. So that's what we really want to

get together with these people to do (Humanist Network News Audio Podcast

2007).

Echoing Gaylors belief that religion is at the root of violence in the world,

Harris blames religion for being the explicitcause of literally millions of deaths

in the last ten years, in numerous global conflicts (2004:26). According to

Dawkins those who wish to save human life should focus more on the maniacal

nature of religion than on commonly discussed diseases. It is fashionable to wax

apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, mad cow

disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the

worlds greatest evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Harris argues that religion is the principal destabilizing factor in the India-

Pakistan conflict over nuclear weapons.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan seems almostinevitable, given what most Indians and Pakistanis believeabout the afterlifeOne might argue that no group of peoplecan quite be trusted with the bomb, but to ignore thedestabilizing role that religion plays on the subcontinent isboth reckless and disingenuous (2004:28).

Harris maintains that Muslims are mandated to loathe the west. It is clear,

however, that Muslims hate the West in the very terms of their faith and that the

Koran mandates such hatred (2004:31). Moreover, he views Muslims asthoroughly other: Any systematic approach to ethics, or to understanding the

necessary underpinnings of a civil society, will find many Muslims standing eye

deep in the red barbarity of the fourteenth century (Harris 2004:145).

Having supposedly established the irrevocable and necessarily destructive

impulse that characterizes the entirety of religion, fundamentalist atheism moves

to bring an end to tolerance itself. In hisNew York Timesbestseller, The End of

Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Harris arrives at the significant

conclusion that belief is not a private matter, it has never been merely private(2004:44). He argues Given the link between belief and action, it is clear that

t l t di it f li i b li f th di it f b li f

JEFF NALL 273


12/19

decided that bashing of beliefs is necessary to further secularist goals for a

more enlightened society.

In the preface of his book,Atheism: A Reader, Joshi writes: Even ridicule of

religion is an entirely valid enterprise (2000:19). Joshi is not alone in thisopinion. In an article on the American Atheist website, Tabash defends the right

to bash other religions: Establishing the social acceptability of ridiculing

(emphasis mine) the absurdities of religious claims is an integral part of gaining

acceptance for secular humanism. In 2005, the Atheists of Florida had among

their stated purposes: To promote the concept that believers of any faith, are the

deluded (my emphasis) victims of unfounded dogmas toward whom sympathy

and under-standing should be extended. This tenet has since been removed

from the organizations website.

In An Atheist Manifesto, Harris suggested the incompatibility of reason

and faith has been a self-evident feature of human cognition and public discourse

for centuries. Harris further declares interfaith dialogue and mutual

tolerance futile. The only way to banish religious warfare, he writes, is to

eradicate the dogma of faith. In A Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris

acknowledges that he and Christian fundamentalists agree about one thing: if

one of us is right, the other is wrong(2006:4). In nothing short of an

apocalyptical tone, Harris writes:

The Bible is either the word of God, or it isnt. Either Jesusoffers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), orhe does not. We agree that to be a true Christian is to believethat all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so. IfChristianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I shouldexpect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I havepersuaded others, many close to me, to reject the very idea ofGod. They too will languish in eternal fire (Matthew 25:41).If the basic doctrine of Christianity is correct, I have misused

my life in the worst conceivable way. (2006:4).

Harris continues, offering the dissenting perspective articulated by liberal and

moderate Christians who reject such a dogmatic definition of true Christian

belief but then summarily dismisses them. Addressing the theoretical Christian

fundamentalist reader he writes: So let us be honest with ourselvesin the

fullness of time, one side is really going to win this argument, and the other side

is really going to lose (2006:5). As if to preempt complaints about the vastly

incomplete depiction of the religious, Harris and Dawkins are quick to

acknowledge moderates exist, but argue that they help breed religious extremists.These fundamentalist atheists attempt to mop up messy generalizations and



13/19

I have little doubt that liberals and moderates find the eeriecertainties of the Christian Right to be as troubling as I do. Itis my hope, however, that they will also begin to see that therespect they demand for their own religious beliefs gives

shelter to extremists of all faith. Although liberals andmoderates do not fly planes into buildings or organize theirlives around apocalyptic prophecy, they rarely question thelegitimacy of raising a child to believe that she is a Christian,a Muslim, or a Jew. Even the most progressive faiths lend tacitsupport to the religious divisions in our world (Harris 2006:ix).

Dawkins bolsters Harris argument. As long as we accept the principle that

religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to

withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide

bombersThe teachings of moderate religion, though not extremist in

themselves, are an open invitation to extremism (2006:306). This assumption is

taken on face value. For Dawkins and Harris, the world is divided into black and

white, religious and secular, winners and losers. These dichotomies, however,

rely on willful ignorance of the way belief has evolved.

Another problematic feature of fundamentalist atheism is that it too narrowly

confines its criticism to religious doctrine and institutions. Atheist and academic

Robert Jensen contends that the concentrated criticism on the church connotes a

failure to equally scrutinize other institutions of power and that religion is not

alone in failing to fully articulate principles of justice, equality, and dignity.

[T]o my mind, every major institution we live in comes upshort. Certainly the organized church comes up woefully short.The nation state, especially the United States that at thismoment is the imperial power, comes up short. Thecorporation and capitalism comes up short. More systems likepatriarchy and white supremacy, which aren't the same ascapitalism and the nation state but are the structuring systemsof our consciousness and many of our institutions, they comeup short obviously. So I think principled people should applythe same scrutiny to all of the systems they live in (Jensen2008:198).

While fundamentalist atheists ring the alarm about the danger posed by

religion, others see issues such as poverty as the underlying cause of much of the

worlds violence.3 Most significantly, fundamentalist atheisms thesis that

religion is at the root of global strife ignores history. Not religion, but a political

and secular ideological struggle motivated both World War I and World War II.If the Christian world must live down the early Catholic Church, the atheist

275JEFF NALL


14/19

Indeed, many acts of violence have been committed in the name of justice, itself.

For it appears that neither the religious nor the secular world has its hands

entirely clean.

The most disturbing example of fundamentalist atheisms intellectual failureand an extension of its apocalyptic tone can be seen in its interpretation of Islam.

Fundamentalist atheists offer biased and hypocritical readings of Islamic motives

for their recourse to violence. This is most sharply pronounced in fundamentalist

atheisms adoption of the September 11, 2001 attack in the United States as its

new rallying-point. While many argue that religion is only part of the complex

problem of terrorism, fundamentalist atheism sees terrorism as a consequence of

religions inherently destructive impetus. In Humanism for Parents: Parenting

without Religion, atheist writer, Sean P. Curley writes:

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center have re-shown usjust how dangerous true faith can be. The attackers were justfollowing the instructions in their holy book and truly believedthey would go to heaven and be welcomed as heroes; really itis hard to blame them if they truly believe (2007:7).

For Hitchens, September 11 and the subsequent war in Iraq are and have been

about defeating religious extremism. Harris has argued that the United States

was wrong to declare war on terrorism, and sees it as akin to declaring war on

war. Instead he argues that the war is better understood as a conflict against

Islam itself (2004:28). Similarly, Dawkins contends that the July 2005 London

bombings were motivated solely by religious faith because Only religious faith

is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and

decent people (Dawkins 2006:303-304). At the bottom of fundamentalist

atheisms apocalyptical assessment of Islams destructive agenda is the shallow

notion that terrorist bombings perpetuated by Islamists have nothing to do with

politics and are purely religiously motivated events. Atheist fundamentalism also

distorts more complex contemplation of Islamic terrorists motives by conflatingtheir reward with their objective, assuming the two are always the same.

Fundamentalist atheisms apocalyptical view of the world has resulted in a

recommendation of genocidal war on Islam. During the 2007 Freedom From

Religion Foundations (FFRF) convention, Hitchens shocked many in the

audience when he recommended carpet bombing Muslims. Responding to

Hitchens comments a conference-goer asked, How exactly does bombing and

killing Muslims lessen their numbers or limit their fervor? Rather than

clarifying that he did not wish to merely indiscriminately murder Muslims butrather desired to attack strategic targets, he mocked the questioner. Im just

d i if h ld d i h d killi h l



15/19

decline. He also described the hunting and killing of al Qaida not only as a duty,

but a pleasure (Hitchens 2007).

Fundamentalist atheisms apocalyptical analysis and violent recommendations

have been rejected by some prominent atheists. Atheist biologist and associateprofessor, P.Z. Myers, who attended the 2007 Freedom from Religion

Foundation convention, criticizes Hitchens analysis as simplistic us-vs-them

thinking at its worst and labels Hitchens recommendation of genocide as

insane (Myers 2007). Myers was not alone in his disgust.

I could tell that he did not have the sympathy of most of theaudience at this point. There were a scattered few whoapplauded wildly at every mention of bombing the Iranians,but the majority were stunned into silence. People were

leavingI heard one woman sing a few bars of Onward,Christian soldiers" as she left to mock his strategy. Thequestions were all angry or disputative, and were all dismissedwith comments about the audience's intelligence. The answerswere always, War, war, war, and that we weren't good atheistsif we didn't agree with murder as the answer. He seemedunable to comprehend that people could despise and oppose allreligion, Christian, Moslem, or otherwise, yet have no desire totriumph by causing physical harm to the believers. I've noticedthe same intellectual blindness in many Christians, actually.Later that evening, someone in the FFRF was handing out anopen letter to the freethought community, one that protestedthe inclusion of Hitchens and opposing any future speakers ofhis sort.

CONCLUSION

Fundamentalist atheisms analysis of religion is colored by an ideological

fanaticism often identified with religious fundamentalism. This tunnel-visionanalysis of religion distorts the diversity of belief found among religious

believers. Fundamentalist atheists have developed a deeply flawed

characterization of religion and its believers as inherently irrational, anti-science,

violent, and averse to progress, which, they believe, mandate a strident response

free of intellectual tolerance. Their critique of religion is based on a series of

generalizations and assumptions that neglect both the diversity and complexity

of religious belief, as well as fundamental sociological considerations. Thinkers

such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens create a religion that amounts to a

monstrous straw-man which they then burn at the stake. They do not, however,

provide sufficient evidence to believe that religion is the root of societys ills

JEFF NALL 277


16/19

annihilated by reason, is based on a definition of religion that illogically relies on

the most fanatical and fundamentalist examples available. In doing so they have

violated a basic tenet of rational discourse, that guilt by vague association is not

enough to convict; or that just because two subjects correlateshare a religiondoes not mean that one (non-extremist believer) necessarily results in the other

(violent extremist). One cannot define a mass of human beings based on a

handful of others who share similarities. While it is true that violent behavior

sometimes correlates with religious belief, fundamentalist atheism has not

sufficiently demonstrated that religion is always the root cause of violent

behavior on the part of a believer. From what we know now, violent extremist

believers are the exception to the norm, not the norm.

If fundamentalist Christians have charged secularism and atheism with

responsibility for causing catastrophes and evil, fundamentalist atheists have

conceived of religion as the root of all evil in our civilization. This ideological

perspective has inspired fundamentalist atheists to proffer the most simplistic

interpretation of the facts. To confirm their belief that religion is the root cause

of violence in the world and thus deserves to be intellectually eradicated and no

longer tolerated they craft a simplistic, stereotype-ridden and generalized

understanding of religion as a whole, lending it to easy demonization. The result

of this faulty logic is the fundamentalist atheists conclusion that democratic-

liberalisms basic tenet of pluralism and tolerance dating back to Enlightenmentphilosophies, is no longer tenable. So much for reason.

ENDNOTES

1For example, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2008 reported that 77 percent

of atheists agree religion causes more problems in society than it solves compared to 62

percent of all Americans who do not agree (2008:15).2Pew Forum on Religion & Public, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Summary of Key

Findings, 3-4.3According to the World Health Organization, poverty is the worlds greatest killer

(Paul Farmer 2004:50). For a reminder of this, consider how in Mexico, the Zapatistas

struggle to receive basic assistance to save thousands of lives. In Chiapas, Mexico 14,500

people die annually from curable diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera, and measles

(Farmer 2004:15). Moreover, 500,000 women die annually in childbirth; 99.8 per of these

deaths occur in developing countries and are suffered by the poor as of 1995 (Farmer

2004:44).



17/19

JEFF NALL 279

REFERENCES

Adams, Reverend James Rowe. 2008. Interviewed by Jeff Nall. Conversations with

Christian and Atheist Activists: James Rowe Adams, InPerpetual Revolt: Essays onPeace and Justice and the Shared Values of Secular, Religious, and Spiritual

Progressivesby Jeff Nall. Berthoud, Colorado: Howling Dog Press.

Associated Press. 2007. Anglican Spiritual Leader Slams Popular Atheist Writers.

Retrieved October 18, 2007

(www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,301597,00.html)

Bennett, Helen. 2005.Humanism, Whats That? A Book for Curious Kids. New York:

Prometheus Books.

Brown, Jim. 2005. Brooklyn College Prof Promoted After Disparaging Religious

Community.Agape Press (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/312005d.asp)

Center for Inquiry, 2007. Leading Minds Speak Out for Secularism. (Press releaseOctober). Amherst, NY: Center for Inquiry. Retrieved October, 28 2007

(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/secularsociety)

Chase, Rev. Robert. 2008. Interviewed by Jeff Nall. Conversations with Christian and

Atheist Activists: Rev. Robert Chase.InPerpetual Revolt: Essays on Peace and Justice

and the Shared Values of Secular, Religious, and Spiritual Progressivesby Jeff Nall.

Berthoud, Colorado: Howling Dog Press.

Curley, Sean P. 2007.Humanism for Parents: Parenting without Religion. United States:

no publisher given.

Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Dawkins, Richard. January/February 1997. Is Science a Religion? The Humanist.

Retrieved November 5, 2008

(http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html)

Farmer, Paul. 2005.Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on

the Poor. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Harris, Dan and Paul Beban. 2007. Atheists Battle Against Religion.ABC News, March

4. Retrieved October 1, 2007 (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2923057)

Harris, Sam. 2006. An Atheist Manifesto. TruthDig.com. Retrieved November 5, 2008

(http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)

Harris, Sam. 2006.Letter to a Christian Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Harris, Sam. 2004. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New

York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New

York: Twelve Books, Hachette Book Group.

Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. Speech and question and answer forum. 30th Annual

Convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Madison, Wis. Available via

http://www.wisconsineye.com/wisEye_programming/ARCHIVES-OCT07.html#ffr, at

mms://71.87.25.133/evt/evt_071013_ffr_saturday_2.wmv

mms://71.87.25.133/evt/evt_071013_ffr_saturday_2.wmv

Humanist Network News Audio Podcast. 2007. The New Atheists on OrganizedFreethought. Transcript 24. Retrieved September 27, 2008

(http://humaniststudies org/enews/?id=325&article=1)


18/19

Jensen, Robert. 2008. Interviewed by Jeff Nall. The Veil of Ignorance, Beyond Religion

InPerpetual Revolt: Essays on Peace and Justice and the Shared Values of Secular,

Religious, and Spiritual Progressivesby Jeff Nall. Berthoud, Colorado: Howling Dog

Press.

Joshi, S.T. 2000.Atheism: A Reader. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Kaminer, Wendy. 2007. Review: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

The Humanist, September/October. Retrieved October 18, 2007

(http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/WendyKaminer.html)

Locke, John. [1689-1693] 1995. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Pp.81-90 in

Enlightenment Reader, edited by Isaac Kramnick. New York: Penguin Books.

Myers, PZ. 2007. FFRF Recap: Heroes of the Revolution, Hitchens Screws the Pooch,

and the Unbearable Stodginess of Atheists. blog. Retrieved October 20, 2007

(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php)

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008. U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.

Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant. Washington, DC:

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved July 15, 2008

(http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008. Summary of Key Findings. Washington,

DC: The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved July 15, 2008

(http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf)

Shortell, Timothy. 2005. Religion & Morality: A Contradiction Explained. Retrieved

June, 27 2005 (www.anti-naturals.org/15cst/no19/p1.htm)

Smith, George. 1980.Atheism: The Case Against God.New York: Prometheus Books.

Tabash, Eddie. N.D. To Bash or Not to Bash: The Debate Secular Humanists Do Not

Need. American Atheists website. Retrieved June, 22 2005

(http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/bash.html)



19/19

Journal Article - Fundamentalist Atheism

Documents

Transcript of Journal Article - Fundamentalist Atheism