I have always thought, naively and probably incorrectly, that what defined Accommodationist is what they think, not how they argue. At the same time, I have always thought that what defined a “New Atheist” is how we argued, and not what we think.
\n
\nWhen I say “always thought” I mean for the last four years max, and when I say “naively and probably incorrectly” I might be only kidding.<\/p>\n
The “new” part of “New Atheism” to me has always been this: You are willing to get up into some dude’s face to make your argument because religion, with its centuries of experience in being on the scene for every aspect of everyone’s life every minute of every day, is already there in the face making its argument. The new atheist response to being told to quiet down is to point out that being told to quiet down (or be more civil or follow certain rules) is step one (or two) in a series of steps that the established religio-normative culture routinely uses to end the argument and let things get back to what they think is normal. So instead of compromising on how the rhetoric is produced, you go in harder and sharper and become Argumentative, Aggressive, and Generally Dickish<\/a>.<\/p>\n In case you’ve not noticed, there is a renewed and much enlivened discussion on the blogosphere regarding this issue and you should have a look at it.<\/p>\n Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution is True<\/a> produced an open letter<\/a> with the option of commenters signing on. The letter is to the National Center for Science Education and the British Center for Science Education identifying “misguided attacks by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke” … attacks on atheism. PZ Myers indicated that he agreed with the idea <\/a>that the National Center for Science Education has “lost its way” in their seeming need “to coddle religious believers because they need them to support science.” And the drama continues from there.<\/p>\n Here is a carnival of posts addressing this issue or helping to contextualize it, in order of posting date. We start with a shocker from Chris Mooney in which he supports New Atheism, which is here because it is referred to by later posts, and work our way through the discussion.<\/p>\n 21 April 2011 Psych Evidence that Supports New Atheism<\/a> (The Intersection)<\/p>\n In general, I believe what we know about human psychology runs contrary to the New Atheist approach and strategy. However,… here’s a study that suggest at least one aspect of their approach may work. … making it more widely known that you’re actually there-as “out” atheists try to do<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 22 April 2011 Too few people know that they know an atheist<\/a> (Josh Rosenau, Thoughts from Kansas)<\/p>\n I actually think Chris is being too nice to New Atheism here, which is rather remarkable. As I’ve said before, it’s hardly surprising that making a group more visible is a better way to build public acceptance than being less visible, and I support efforts to increase atheism’s visibility. But New Atheism is hardly the only way for atheists – or nontheists more generally – to get the word out that they’re here and want to be taken seriously.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 22 April 2011 The Support of New Atheism<\/a> (Almost Diamonds)<\/p>\n Enter the New Atheists. Enter the loud-mouthed confrontationalists who aren’t going to see people behave that way without doing their best to make it quite clear that this behavior in unacceptable. Enter the support team, the cheering squad, the clearers of obstacles. Enter the people who, as PZ Myers’ described his role last year at CONvergence, get angry for those of who aren’t allowed to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 23 April 2011 A bright spot at The Chronicle and an open letter<\/a> (Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True blog)<\/p>\n The official policy of your organizations–certainly of the NCSE–is apparently to cozy up to religion. You have “faith projects,” you constantly tell us to shut up about religion, and you even espouse a kind of theology which claims that faith and science are compatible. Clearly you are going to continue with these activities, for you’ve done nothing to change them in the face of criticism. And your employees, past and present, will continue to heap invective on New Atheists and tar people like Richard Dawkins with undeserved opprobrium.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 24 April 2011 Jerry Coyne’s open letter<\/a> (Pharyngula)<\/p>\n I really feel that the NCSE has lost its way on this issue. I want to support the NCSE, but it has become increasingly hard to do. I have heard these arguments over and over again that they have to coddle religious believers because they need them to support science. They don’t.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 25 April 2011 Watch those assumptions <\/a>(Ophelia Benson)<\/p>\n … it’s pretty clear that what Rosenau is doing here is simply assuming that “New Atheism” means “atheism that is rude and aggressive and strident and mean.” That is one assumption too many.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 25 April 2011 Jerry Coyne has another go at the NCSE and BCSE<\/a> (British Center for Science Education)<\/p>\n If Atheist scientists really want to drive undecidedc Christians, into the YEC camp then this, surely is the correct way to go about it. Seems that according to some, science=Atheism and that’s that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n April 26, 2011 The BCSE blows up<\/a> (Pharyngula)<\/p>\n That open letter to the NCSE by Jerry Coyne really seems to have set the cat among the pigeons — it’s an amazing flurry of ruffled feathers. I don’t see how there’s any hope of reconciliation, either, as long as the apologists for religion continue to be as obtuse as they have been.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 26 April 2011 Why I’ve avoided commenting on Nisbet’s ‘Climate Shift’ report<\/a> (David Roberts, Grist)<\/p>\n …[i]t argued that, contrary to what most people think, pro-climate-bill forces spent more than their opponents, media coverage of climate science has been generally fair, and Al Gore is just as responsible as Republicans for politicizing the subject of climate change. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 26 April 2011 Argumentative, Aggressive, and Generally Dickish<\/a> (Almost Diamonds)<\/p>\n What to remember when you’ve said that confrontational atheists have made it harder for you to make progress on your shared goals, and some atheist has gotten (eek, gasp, shock, horror, blah, blah, blah) rude with you. This is particularly true for the endless argument over promoting science.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 26 April 2011 Be really nice to the people who are telling you to hush<\/a> (Ophelia Benson)<\/p>\n Stephanie Z has an excellent comment on Josh Rosenau’s post about how I’m totally wrong about what he means by “the New Atheism.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 27 April 2011 Definitions<\/a> (Ophelia Benson)<\/p>\n The question is, how do we decide what “new atheism” is? What is new atheism, who gets to decide, how do we know? … The answer turns out to be that we simply define it as that which we dislike. Easy. Circular, but easy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 28 April 2011 Taking it Downhill<\/a> (Almost Diamonds)<\/p>\n …All these pesky crusaders, who just won’t shut up, who won’t just go with the flow for a bit so things can get done, so the people with the keys to the kingdom will give us just a little bit more. Ugh! What is to be done with people so rude, so demanding, so mean?!?…A gatekeeper’s job is to keep people out, not to let them in.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 29 April 2011 True Equivalence<\/a> (Almost Diamonds)<\/p>\n … false equivalence is the only reason to compare “New Atheist” communications to fundamentalist positions. Confronting religion head on is no more “mean,” “distorting,” or “prejudicial” toward the religious than mainstream religious messaging is toward atheists. Need examples? …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n