The Evangelism, Pessimism, and Elitism of New Atheism
How an ideology premised on non-belief makes you less fun to be around.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a strange hero of mine, though I have made a habit of having strange heroes for much of my life. We share almost nothing in common, except that we both love to communicate through writing. I love it, anyways, and she lives it, so I am counting it.
She grew up not only under, but in, the Muslim Brotherhood in Somalia. She was victim of genital mutilation, and eventually left Islam behind for the Netherlands, critiquing her old way of life as a member of the New Atheist movement. I contend that she has always been the most formidable member of this group, perhaps excepting Hitchens, who was certainly the more witty, albeit arrogant, counterpart.
She was formidable because she was a victim of extreme religious ideology, and as a critical opponent, her reality as a victim who secured intellectual and actual liberation transformed her into a victor of the highest order. She chose the life of victory, and as such, her words held weight. I valued her as a real check on religious idealism, even my own, as a Christian. If they go too far, couldn’t we? And if we call her championing of Western ideas and rejection of oppression liberation, then hasn’t she been liberated from all religiousity? Am I bound?
So the shock of her conversion to Christianity was palpable to her friends, and people like me who admired her from afar, geographically and intellectually.
But I am a Christian. And so her conversion was a cause for celebration on a theological level, the way the scriptures say that heaven rejoices when a new brother or sister is added to its number. And intellectually, it further vindicated my own intellectual journey from christian-lite to atheism to Christianity. The essay she wrote on her coming to Christianity was not a story of conversion, but rather a defense of an ideology. Still, she called herself a Christian. So I assumed there was a story, and she told some of it later in an interview over at UnHerd. She was still navigating a faith journey, but she believed, and it had changed her. That matters.
Perhaps more interesting than her newfound faith was the responses from her crowd of thinkers and friends, her intellectual peers. They rejected her story as one of faith, but instead sought to enlighten her readers to what they perceived as her actual position. She was a not a Christian in the theological sense, they argued, but only one who saw the benefits of Christian influence. Her calling herself a Christian was merely a practical use of terms, a nod to an evolution in her thinking rather than a heart change.
Then her interview came out, and it was clear that something had happened, was happening, to Ali that was deeper than an intellectual thought pattern. Her friends, in response, held the line.
Isn’t this the outworkings of the New Atheist movement? The -ism of New Atheism as a movement includes other subordinate -isms in its moray of ideology, among them evangelism, pessimism, and elitism.
Evangelism
It is often pointed out that New Atheism’s tendency to spread its gospel of nothingness occurs with just as much if not more fervency than the evangelical Christian church. Of course, atheists, the average ones without a following to speak of, will protest that Atheism is simply a belief in nothingness, and therefore cannot described in terms of religious zealotry. Yet, New Atheism has all the markings of such. Buzzwords to make its instagram influencers easily accessible. Masses uncritical and unengaged with the ideas of its deepest core. And a series of (false) prophets whose words and arguments echo their forbears and lull the masses into belief and sustained pseudo-attention.
Those false prophets, the New Atheist leaders, might say that they are not evangelizing, but pushing back on the religious enterprise and its dangers. Point taken. But why advocate for the material humanist view when it would be enough to simply ditch Christianity or forsake Islam? Is not the message that only the humanist, secular, effective altruist, point of view rooted in atheism (read, godlessness) will do? When you advocate one ideology at the exclusion of all others, and claim that the ideology is the path toward “enlightenment” (their actual word!), then you’re an evangelist. And that’s ok by me. I believe in Christian evangelism, the kind that brought Ayaan Hirsi Ali home, because I believe Christianity is true. So, it is understandable that the New Atheism is on its own crusade.
Just be honest about it.
The moral system that you claim can exist without God requires it of you. Evangelists, the whole the lot. When you acknowledge as much, we must get down, then, to the true problem. The question shifts. First we ask: If you don’t believe in anything, why do you care so much? But when you are honest, we can get follow the turtles down: If you are evangelizing this ideology built on humanism and secular morality that you crafted independent of religion, aren’t you your own God?
Pessimism
The most disturbing thing to me was the response of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s friends and colleagues. Michael Shermer penned an essay discounting Ali’s original reasoning for her conversion, calling her “mistaken.” Her mistake is that she credited Judeo-Christian thought and history for their contributions to societal good, rather than Shermer’s version of the enlightenment built on secular humanism. Andrew Sullivan, whose own Christianity is well documented, spent several paragraphs of his own response detailing the problems he found will Ali’s conversion story rooted in ideas rather than religious fervor. The title of that piece was a summary estimation of what he saw as Ali’s argument: “Christianity, False but Useful”. This piece is especially confusing, as Sullivan seems to hold the line with the New Atheists despite being a formidable Christian. His alliance to his intellectual group shows, and his celebration is absent resulting in what feels like a lost opportunity to me, a lowly observer.
In the last section of the piece, he finally got around to acknowledging her interview, in which she seems to intimate legitimate heart change. Famous New Atheist Richard Dawkins wrote an “open letter” to Ali, stating, “Seriously Ayaan? You’re no more Christian than I am.”
Several prominent atheist outlets responded as well.
I could comment on the fact that Shermer is mistaken, that the Enlightenment evolved with Judeo-Christian ideals. I could say that Sullivan, as a Christian, should celebrate first and publicly, and doubt the conversion of others second and privately, lest he cause division in the body and bring the doubt of salvation to a sister. I could say that Dawkins, as is often the case, comes across as a condescending blowhard, and would not have any idea of what is happening in the heart and mind of another. To presume makes one, well, presumptuous.
Not only do these thinkers seem to imply that they have a better understanding of Ali’s conversion than Ali herself, an arrogant premise at best, but they betray a sentiment that whatever peace or joy Ali ascribes to her current life as a Christian should be eschewed for their worldview. They write like fellow soldiers who are reading a letter from a defected comrade. And perhaps that is how they feel.
To be so jaded that a story from a friend about finding intellectual and emotional stimulation from something you disagree with produces shock and frustration rather than joy and happiness is a tragedy. It makes a moral statement of the ideology that births such an attitude.
If secular humanism does not cause you to rejoice with your friends, then it is not much of an ideology to build a moral system on.
Elitism
A friend of mine once called me to tell me that he was having a baby. He was the first of our friend group, and young,. Younger than he had planned. I got excited for him, and asked a lot of questions before I realized that he didn’t seem to have any answers. His voice was short, taut, breathless. He sounded like he had just been the victim of a mugging.
“Where are you?” I asked.
“I am out. I got so scared that I left. We talked about waiting til things were more stable, and now we are completely screwed.”
“So you just left her there? Like holding a pregnancy test?” He had. I advised him to go home, after getting some flowers and food and whatever else might repair the damage, and put on a happy face until it became real. He did. They have several kids now. Praise God.
I rejoiced with him, despite the fact that he couldn’t rejoice for himself. But I rejoiced because what he was telling me was good. I did not validate his misplaced feelings. He has done the same for me before. We rejoice in the good, and do not rejoice in that which cannot be validated.
When Ali told her story, especially at first, there did seem to be some trepidation, which she cloaked in intellectualism. It is the water she, and her tribe, swim in. But her friends and peers did not encourage her to embrace her newfound leanings for the sake of intellectual honesty. nor did they acknowledge the parts of her story that were tough, like her admission of a struggle with binge drinking. They took her intellectual justification as reason for her entire story to be in her own mind. Imagine me doing the same to my friend. “Your fear of fatherhood is actually evidence that you are not ready to be a father, that you cannot be a father. It does not matter that the baby comes regardless.”
Their doubt, their frustration at their friend’s new faith is not out of concern for her, at least not chiefly. Their doubt in her is not rooted in doubt of her character. She seems to be above reproach.
They doubt because they have convinced themselves of a great lie; that the winds of rationality and enlightenment only blow in one direction. In other words, anyone who is capable and willing to evaluate the evidence, their evidence, will come to see things in light of New Atheism. They cannot fathom that someone as bold and smart as Ali would come to another conclusion because all who do are either dopes, duped, or duplicitous. Another essay for another day.
This is a tenant of Marxism, perhaps the most infuriating of all the Marxist dictums; the masses are deceived into voting against their own interests. Can there be any more elitist nonsense than this? This is why they frame their version of reason in the language of enlightenment. We who can think have seen the light, and you who do not, have not.
The reality is that the New Atheist movement has done much in the way of cultural and political critique. I count several of their number to be intellectual giants and heroes in my own pursuits. But what does it say about an ideology, one founded on and purposed for free speech, expression, and thinking, when its chief architects react abhorrently when someone departs the movement as a result of exercising those freedoms?
It says that you can add them to the list of people not to stand by at a party. The Crossfitter at the Christmas party who wants me to join him at the gym in the new year. (I’m him. Seriously, my gym is the best, plus there’s this whole discount thing I get if you come with.) The single woman in her thirties who complains that all the married couples are being too couple-y, what with their merriment and mistletoeing. The guy who has already read the book you bought your grandmother, and hated it because it was derivative, Dickensian. (My Lord, I’m him too.)
And the New Atheist, the unholy trinity of all three.
Ali deserves a seat at the table, not because she’s a Christian now, but because she is who she has always been. Honest. Intellectually rigorous. Brave.
The New Atheists will still be welcome too, but they'll have to park it at the kid’s table.
Reading this post makes me think you may be interested in checking out a newish podcast series called “The surprising rebirth of belief in God”
We are all evolving from the birth of the monotheistic religions developed some 5000 years ago and humanity’s mighty struggle to explain its existence and purpose here on earth. We made a right mess of it juxtaposing conquering and governing and building mighty civilizations with religious theocracy and dogma to further separate ourselves from and dominate one another, and this distortion still pervades. It is deeply embedded in us now so very difficult to see and observe let alone resolve. The question is not whether there is a creator God, surely we are all here and this universe is ‘created’ by a force so beautifully complex yet simple that we cannot see it or define it, yet we all sense it. We may never decipher this mystery. It is perhaps designed that way in its purpose, so creating religions that are ‘right’ and ‘righteous’ in an attempt to finalize the problem with an answer- religion- is an oxymoron.