Richard Dawkins Militant Atheism: New Atheists

The mere concept of atheism is one that provokes debate and controversy. The perpetrators of such controversy, dubbed the “new atheists,” include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. These three men state their beliefs of the non-existence of God or any divine being(s) as absolute fact, using their scientific knowledge as evidence. The main proponent of atheism is the use of rational, intellectual thought and testable hypotheses in order to understand the world, not relying on the so-called primitive superstitions of religion to explain our existence or that of the unknown. However, the manner in which these new atheists go about explaining their viewpoints can be seen as problematic and so the following questions must be

An English evolutionary biologist and author, Dawkins is perhaps the most militant of the three. In fact, the TED talk he gave in 2002 was titled “Militant Atheism.” Throughout the talk, Dawkins shows his stance on religion, claiming it to be “corrosive to science,” as well as inherently trivial and stupid, with the implication that religious individuals are afraid of evolution and science. On the other hand, he sees science - which he defines as something testable through hypotheses that can disproven - as elegant and powerful (TED, 7:23-7:50). Atheists, too, are a more sophisticated, logical, and elite breed, according to Dawkins; he even goes so far as to equate science and evolution as atheistic (TED, 5:38-5:51). More problematic here is his belief that there is a correlation between intelligence and religious belief, using IQ as a determining factor - “the intelligentsia,” as he calls them, are those who are more intelligent, and therefore less likely to be religious (TED, 15:55-16:46). Aside from being inherently racist, this way of determining a person’s intellect is proven to be flawed because it doesn’t take into account the complexity of something like intelligence. Surely, a man of science should know that. Anyway, Dawkins says, “a true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith” (TED, 4:53-5:00). The question is, how? What is it about Darwinism or science that makes it so

Of religion, Hitchens says it arose in our infancy, at a time human beings knew and understood nothing about the world around us and thus used it as lies we told ourselves to quell our fears (Talks at Google, 3:03-4:02). A notable quote from the video is, “It’s no coincidence, no accident, that almost every scientific advance has been made in the teeth of religious opposition of one form or another that says we shouldn’t be tampering with God’s design” (Talks at Google, 6:35-6:44). Not only is he wrong, for reasons that will be discussed in a later paragraph, but he is perpetuating the idea that there is a clear and deep divide between religion and science. Science, according to Hitchens, is the beginning of wisdom and freedom, whereas religion comes from an innate wish to be servile and is sadomasochist, primitive nonsense, with “ancient texts full of lies and myths” (Talks at Google, 10:44-10:54; 27:59-28:11). The third of the new atheists is Sam Harris, an author and neuroscientist. Harris, like Dawkins and Hitchens, is especially critical of Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). He also has the same opinion as Hitchens regarding morality and how it should exist without religion as a necessary