Skip to content

Is "New Atheism" Declining or Evolving?

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Is "New Atheism" Declining or Evolving?

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut. The cafe is near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

--------------------------------------------------------

IS "NEW ATHEISM" DECLINING OR EVOLVING?

INTRODUCTION:

This meetup will begin by asking what (if anything) distinguishes "New Atheism" from older versions of atheism, and address the perennial debates over whether prominent "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris & Daniel Dennett are "atheist fundamentalists". Next, we'll look at the extent to which polls have shown changes in the percentage of the American population that believe in God and evolution since 2000, and we'll discuss the extent to which organized atheism has been successful in getting non-believers to "come out" publicly as atheists. Third, we'll try to determine the extent to which advocacy movements have been able to change people's minds and try to determine whether a confrontational approach works or inspires backlash. Fourth, we'll look at the rise of atheist activism on the internet and the way it split into pro- and anti-"social justice warrior" factions. Finally, we'll assess whether these inter-atheist conflicts and the shifting political climate could be responsible for recent allegations that the "atheist movement" is in decline.

NOTE: This discussion is about taking a sociological & psychological approach to "New Atheism" as a social movement. This discussion will therefore NOT involve any in-depth examination or debate of the merits of the various claims made by New Atheists, such as the existence of God, the social utility/harmfulness of religion, the geopolitical threat of fundamentalist Islam, or the various social justice issues that have recently split the atheist community. All of those issues are complex and deserve their own separate meetups.

REVIEW OF RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

This discussion's topic - the sociology of atheism & atheist advocacy - relates to several previous discussions we've had on activism & rhetoric's effect on public opinion:

(1) In our last discussion, we looked at several theories about how information spreads & culture evolves (e.g. memetics, tipping point theory, the spiral of silence, minority rule, the toxoplasma of rage). We talked about how these theories might help us explain shifts in public opinion on diverse issues like the Iraq War, NSA spying, same-sex marriage, and McCarthyism. While Malcom Gladwell's "three laws of epidemics" (i.e. the law of the few, the stickiness factor, the power of context) provides a useful shorthand for thinking about how ideas spread, we saw that there was so much disagreement among scholars about how ideas spread that it's difficult to generalize about how & why cultural shifts occur.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/251486560/

(2) Back in February, we discussed science activism & science policy, and in particular we discussed whether political advocacy by scientists causes a "backfire effect" and harms public trust in science. A small focus group study by GMU's John Kotcher & Emily Vraga found that participants didn't downgrade the credibility of hypothetical scientists for specifically advocating for action on climate change. However, in a more real-world context, Yale's Daniel Kahan observed that the fast-track roll-out of Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) caused a backlash effect among socially conservative parents who didn't want immunization to signal an endorsement of premarital sex. Kahan argued this backlash could've been avoided if parents found out about the HPV vaccine in private from their doctor instead of via GSK's ad campaign.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/246835989/

(3) Last August, we looked at research on how exposure to new information can change people's minds to see if the "marketplace of ideas" concept can be empirically verified, both in terms of getting people to adopt new scientific theories & getting people to develop more empathy for their out-groups. In the 1st section of the outline, we discussed how cognitive dissonance can lead to a backfire effect in some cases, but research by the political scientists Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifer suggest that in most cases people "heed factual information, even when such information challenges their partisan & ideological commitments". In the 2nd section, we discussed research into how different forms of activism can create more empathy for minority groups, particularly in terms of shifting people's views on same-sex marriage. In general, the research appears to indicate that in-person canvassing that uses rapport-building can work, but shaming people for their beliefs is liable to backfire.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/240812126/

(4) Back in February, the Philly Political Agnostics had a meetup on the major points of consensus within political science. One of those points that most political scientists agree upon (addressed in the 2nd section of the discussion outline) is that elections tend to be determined by "the fundamentals" (i.e. how the economy is doing, whether the country is at war, and how long the incumbent party has been in power) and that campaign ads, debates & speeches have an indiscernible (and possibly negligible) effect. Note, however, that this may be due to the fact that both major parties are spending a lot of money & engaging in lots of campaign rhetoric, so what we're really seeing is that attempts at persuading voters run into diminishing returns & reach a plateau where additional attempts don't have much effect at the margin.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

(5) Last November, the Philly Political Agnostics held a meetup on climate change, and the 1st section of the discussion outline looked at how "cultural cognition" tends to lead liberals & conservatives to become MORE polarized in their beliefs about climate change the more they learned about the issue. This suggests that once scientific issues like climate change take on partisan meanings, merely providing the public with more information is unlikely to lead to wider belief.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywnbmc/

Since this meetup will involve discussing the causes of ideological differences between atheists & religious believers as well as inter-atheist debates, it's worth pondering whether this might be influenced by underlying psychological factors. The Philly Political Agnostics has addressed this in past meetups:

(1) In March of 2017, the Philly Political Agnostics had a meetup that assessed the accusation that New Atheists like Sam Harris are preaching a form of "scientism" and a naive form of utilitarianism. In the 3rd section of the discussion outline, we looked at psychological research on atheists & scientists to determine why both groups might tend to endorse utilitarianism. For our purposes here, the relevant part may be the psychological tendencies of atheists we uncovered: higher than average IQ, higher tendency towards Systematizing (as opposed to Empathizing), high Openness, low Agreeableness, low Conscientiousness. Note that low scores on the latter 2 traits appear somewhat unique to American atheists, since European atheists score about average on those traits. Researchers suggest this may be because the US is more religious and thus open atheism in this environment may require an individual to have more of an argumentative, anti-authoritarian streak. We also addressed the grain of truth behind the accusations that atheists, scientists & utilitarians are "autistic" and/or "psychopaths" -- essentially this conflates mild cognitive tendencies with psychopathology.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/236906739/

(2) In May of 2016, the Philly Political Agnostics explored various psychological & sociological theories that might shed light on the rise of an activist faction on the progressive left colloquially known as "social justice warriors" (SJWs), the "illiberal left" or the "Regressive left". There's a variety of theories for some of the more extreme behavior by SJWs, such as a left-wing variant of authoritarianism, an excessively high level of Agreeableness that leads to "pathological altruism", and a tendency towards "hypermentalizing" (overinferring other people's mental state) which can lead to paranoid social cognition.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/pgdfslyvhblc/

(3) In a follow-up meetup in June of 2016, the Philly Political Agnostics explored various psychological & sociological theories for the emergence of a politically diverse coalition of people opposing SJWs sometimes known as "cultural libertarians". There's a variety of theories for the enmity cultural libertarians have SJWs, such as "psychological reactance" due to an anti-authoritarian streak, dark triad traits that lead to trolling & bullying of "perfect victims" like SJWs, and an internal locus of control that leads to a "just world hypothesis" that clashes with social justice concerns.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/pgdfslyvjbpb/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over New Atheism. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about 43 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on the 1st section, about 45 minutes total discussing the 2nd & 3rd sections in tandem, and then about 45 minutes total discussing the 4th & 5th sections in tandem.

----------------------------------------------

I. WHAT IS "NEW ATHEISM"?

  • ARE THERE ANY DISCERNIBLE CORE BELIEFS THAT SEPARATE THE "FOUR HORSEMAN" OF NEW ATHEISM (I.E. RICHARD DAWKINS, CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, SAM HARRIS, DANIEL DENNETT) FROM OTHER ATHEISTS?

  • ARE THERE ANY FACTORS IN THE SOCIAL & POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT IN 2006 THAT MIGHT ACCOUNT FOR THE ATHEIST TRACTS BY THE "FOUR HORSEMEN" BECOMING BEST-SELLERS?

  • WERE THE "FOUR HORSEMAN" OF NEW ATHEISM MORE PRONE TO ENGAGING IN ANGRY, ARROGANT & DOGMATIC RHETORIC, AS JONATHAN HAIDT HAS ARGUED? IF SO, IS IT ACCURATE TO CALL THEM "ATHEIST FUNDAMENTALISTS"?

1a) Andrew Brown vs. Daniel Dennett, "Do the New Atheists have any new ideas?" (video - 5:00 min.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2013/jul/08/new-atheists-ideas-video-debate

1b) Genetically Modified Skeptic, "Jonathan Haidt Thinks New Atheists are Dogmatic (A Response)" (video - 10:17 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAmWNl0oswY

II. TRENDS IN AMERICAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF - RISE OF THE "NONES":

  • SHOULD WE THINK OF THOSE WHO LIST NO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION IN SURVEYS AS CLOSETED ATHEISTS?

  • HOW CAN SOME NON-AFFILIATED "NONES" IN THE U.S. BE MORE RELIGIOUS THAN NOMINAL CHRISTIANS IN EUROPE?

  • WILL THE CURRENT DECLINE IN PRACTICING CHRISTIANS & RISE OF NON-AFFILIATED "NONES" IN AMERICA BE REVERSED BY GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS?

  • WHY DO AMERICANS BECOME MORE POLARIZED IN THEIR BELIEF IN EVOLUTION THE MORE THEY LEARN ABOUT BIOLOGY?

  • WHY MIGHT REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS HAVE BECOME MORE POLARIZED IN THEIR BELIEF IN EVOLUTION IN RECENT YEARS?

  • IF THE ISSUE OF EVOLUTION WAS SOMEHOW DEPOLARIZED, COULD BELIEF IN EVOLUTION BE RAISED FASTER THAN THE RISE OF "NONES" & ATHEISTS?

  • WHAT SOCIO-ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS APPEAR TO INFLUENCE THESE TRENDS IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF?

  • WHY ARE SELF-IDENTIFIED ATHEISTS DISPROPORTIONATELY WHITE & MALE, AND IS THIS CHANGING?

2a) David Pakman, "Christianity in Sharp Decline in America [Pew Study, 2015]" (video - 3:47 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A10__hhVGM

2b) Kyle Kulinski, “How Many Americans Believe In Evolution? [Pew Study, 2013]” (video - 3:36 min.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=54Pq5l4v150

Scotty Hendricks, "Are right-wing evangelicals causing the rise in religious 'nones'?"
https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/are-right-wing-christian-evangelicals-accidentally-creating-more-religious-nones

III. ATHEISM'S PUBLIC IMAGE & THE EFFECTS OF ATHEIST ACTIVISM:

  • WHY ARE ATHEISTS SO DISTRUSTED?

  • IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MEDIA PROMINENCE OF THE "NEW ATHEIST" AUTHORS HAD AN EFFECT ON TRENDS IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF? IF SO, WAS IT BY "CONVERTING" RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO ATHEISM OR BY GETTING MORE "NONES" TO COME OUT PUBLICLY AS ATHEISTS?

  • EVEN IF THE ATTEMPT TO RE-BRAND ATHEISTS AS "BRIGHTS" NEVER TOOK OFF, WOULD ADOPTING A NEW NAME WITH A MORE POSITIVE CONNOTATION HELP NON-BELIEVER'S PUBLIC IMAGE?

  • DO PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENTS BY ATHEIST GROUPS (E.G. BUS ADS, BILLBOARDS, ETC.) THAT MOCK RELIGION & GENERATE PUBLICITY HELP OR HURT THE MOVEMENT? ARE GOOGLE TRENDS A GOOD WAY TO ASSESS THIS QUESTION?

  • IS "STREET EPISTEMOLOGY" COMPARABLE TO DEEP CANVASSING IN TERMS OF GETTING PEOPLE TO QUESTION THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WITHOUT INSPIRING A BACKLASH EFFECT? IS THE SOMEWHAT COVERT WAY THAT STREET EPISTEMOLOGY IS USED DISHONEST; AND IF SO, WOULD AN OVERT INVITATION TO CHAT WITH AN ATHEIST BE A BETTER METHOD?

3a) John Iadarola, "Fear Of Atheism Explained" (video - 2:00 min.)
https://youtu.be/207DJgyHxyI?t=9

3b) David Silverman, "Does Atheist Activism Hurt or Help?" (video - 12:23 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YrTULolCe0

IV. "INTERNET ATHEISM" AND FLAME WARS:

  • DOES INTERNET ACCESS INCREASE ATHEISM OR IS THIS MERELY A SPURIOUS CORRELATION? IF THE INTERNET DOES INCREASE ATHEISM, HOW MIGHT IT HAPPEN?

  • WHY DO ATHEISTS SEEM MORE PROMINENT ON CERTAIN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES LIKE YOUTUBE & REDDIT?

  • IS THERE ANY TRUTH TO THE STEREOTYPE OF INTERNET ATHEISTS BEING "TROLLS" WHO ARE DIVIDED INTO "NECKBEARDS" & "SJWs", OR IS THIS A PRODUCT OF SELECTION BIAS?

  • WAS "GAMERGATE" IN 2014 THE CATALYST THAT CAUSED "INTERNET ATHEISTS" & "YOUTUBE SKEPTICS" TO SHIFT FROM ATTACKING RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES TO ATTACKING FEMINISTS & "SJWs"? WHAT OTHER FACTORS MIGHT BE BEHIND THE SHIFT, AND DOES THE INTERNET ATHEISTS' "WAR ON SJWs" APPEAR TO BE DECLINING?

  • IS THERE ANY SUBSTANCE TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT INTERNET ATHEIST GROUPS HAVE BECOME A "PIPELINE TO THE ALT-RIGHT"?

4a) Laci Green, “Will The Internet Kill Religion?” (Video - 2:30 min.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=04jjBv6QR8k

4b) Dave Cullen, "The Third Phase of The YouTube Skeptic Community" (video - 5:31 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKlP8IbPzw

V. IS THE "ATHEIST MOVEMENT" DECLINING OR MERELY EVOLVING?

  • DOES THE DOWNWARD TREND IN GOOGLE SEARCHES FOR "ATHEISM" SINCE 2012, THE SMALLER ATTENDANCE FOR THE REASON RALLY IN 2016, AND THE CANCELLATION OF THE 2018 GLOBAL ATHEIST CONVENTION INDICATE THAT THE PUBLIC IS TIRING OF THE TOPIC OF ATHEISM?

  • HOW MIGHT RECENT CHANGES IN THE SOCIAL & POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT HELP ACCOUNT FOR CHANGES IN PUBLIC INTEREST IN ATHEISM?

  • HAVE THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT & SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES INVOLVING SEVERAL HIGH-PROFILE ATHEISTS (E.G. MICHAEL SHERMER, RICHARD CARRIER, LAWRENCE KRAUSS, DAVID SILVERMAN) DECREASED WOMEN'S INTEREST IN ATHEISM?

  • HAVE ATHEIST ORGANIZATIONS, CONFERENCES & MEDIA (BOOKS, MAGAZINES, BLOGS, PODCASTS) EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF MEMBERS & VIEWERS DUE TO THE CLASHES BETWEEN THE NEW ATHEIST AUTHORS & SECULAR PROGRESSIVE PUNDITS, OR HAS THE CONTROVERSY INCREASED PUBLIC INTEREST?

  • DID THE INVITATION OF CONTROVERSIAL "YOUTUBE SKEPTICS" LIKE SARGON TO MYTHCON IN 2017 SIGNAL A MAJOR POLITICAL SPLIT IN THE ATHEIST MOVEMENT? ARE THERE ENOUGH ATHEISTS IN AMERICA TO SUSTAIN SEPARATE GROUPS FOR PROGRESSIVES, LIBERTARIANS & SECULAR CONSERVATIVES?

  • ARE THERE ANY SIGNS OF WHAT THE NEXT PHASE(S) OF THE ATHEIST MOVEMENT MIGHT BE: SAM HARRIS & DAVE RUBIN’S "INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB"? STEVEN PINKER'S "LIBERAL HUMANISM"? ALAIN DE BOTTON’S "ATHEISM 2.0"? GRETA CHRISTINA'S "SOCIAL JUSTICE ATHEISM"? MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI’S "MODERN STOICISM"?

  • WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE RISE & FALL OF PREVIOUS SECULAR GROUPS OF THE LATE 19th & EARLY 20TH CENTURY LIKE "FREETHOUGHT" AND "ETHICAL CULTURE"?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/11/22/what-can-we-learn-from-the-cancellation-of-the-global-atheist-convention/

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
See more events
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
public group