On New Atheism

I never formally learned about philosophy of religions, but I have been in and out of various religious forums since long ago, switching roles as a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic just for the hell fun of it. I was once called as "the most intelligent theist" in an Indonesian atheist forum. I wasn't proud. I was ashamed, since I was just using standard theistic philosophical arguments. Apparently Indonesian theists are that lazy to read philosophy and apologetic books. Along these times, I've encountered various forms of theists, atheists, and agnostics. There are some who are peaceful and well-mannered (even the theists). But pains-in-the-asses were too many, not only coming from the religious, but the atheists - the new atheists - as well.

Quoting Simon Hooper on CNN, what new atheists try to disseminate is "a belief [sic] that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." It is commonly associated with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together they are aptly named as "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism"). The only difference between the New Atheists and their forerunners is their stridency in highlighting and exposing the absurdities of organized religions. This may not be something new, as Bertrand Russell and Robert Ingersoll were also staunch critics of organized religions. But from now, I call "new atheists" to refer to the atheists in this internet era.

Concerning Anonymity

Before the coming of the internet that easily grants anonymity, heretical and counter-religious discourses were facing harsh treatments by then theocratic governments (except, for instance, at the time of Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar's reign, when he provided ground for wide-range religious debates). We all remember how in 1616 Galileo was subject to the Inquisition for countering Catholic dogmatic view of geosentrism. Galileo was "more" fortunate, after all, than his colleague Giordano Bruno. In 1600, the Christian authorities in Rome put Bruno in the dungeon for 8 years, only then afterward they nailed his tongue, tied him to a metal post, put wood and some of his books under his feet, and burned him to death. And it was just for teaching heliocentrism. As the human right protection with regards to freedom of speech becomes more robust, the works from many atheist authors bloomed. However, not so much atheists enjoyed this privilege. In many theocratic countries, even becoming an apostate can lead to death sentence. We also still observe censorship, and books (even fictional works like The Satanic Verses or The Da Vinci Code) being banned or burned by governments in these days.

Then again, I'm not saying that anonymity is inherently bad or cowardly. True, outspoken people like Tan Malaka or Pramoedya Ananta Toer were brave enough to speak out to what they dearly believe as right. But in a country where Alex Aan or the recently convicted Sebastian Joe are incarcerated because of an insignificant Facebook status, anonymity grants these atheists assurance that their messages can spread widely first, before (perhaps) at certain point they are caught. Also, back then, Tan Malaka enjoyed massive supports due to the growing masses of PKI. Yet, in this era of open information, xenophobia and prejudice towards atheist - even ex-communists - is still high. You can recall how Pram was utterly disappointed with this country's half-assed apology and reconciliation process for ex-PKI members. That being said, to call these new atheists cowardly is then not quite true, as it is just a valid and strategic move.

What I want to criticize is not their anonymity, rather, the quality of their arguments. Instead of publishing well-thought satirical jeremiads like those from Voltaire or Thomas Paine, some of these new atheists turn themselves to internet anonymity as a shelter for their assholery. What's more irksome is that these new atheists contribute almost nothing towards the advancement of their position. They committed fanatically to the non-existence of God, yet only able to refute the most basic theistic arguments. They often resort to saying dopey remarks calling theism as "stupid", "barbaric" and then spewing further mockery, contempt, and condescending arrogance. They apparently forget that progressive Christian or Islam have flourished everywhere. This is utterly disappointing, as they are usually the ones who vehemently proclaim to be upholding decorum and reason over non-sequituurs. Funnily, if you try to call their movements as "getting this close to become religion", they will be terribly butthurted and will go uproar; despite actually their behaviors, as one may observe, are closer to religious fanatics than many moderate religious people. Bear in mind that I never called atheism as a religious system, merely some of new atheists' behaviors look so much like religious zealots.

On the Death of Religious Debate

I personally think that the debate of god and religion is dead already as there aren't many new epistemological/ontological approaches or new arguments these days. Many theists still revolve around 3rd century Aristotle's Prime Mover argument and argument from design (including the subsequent god-of-the-gaps arguments that follow). Some of them opt to use arguments from St. Anselm's ontology, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, or Soren Kierkegaard's asceticism. Contemporary theist like Alvin Plantinga proposed "reformed epistemology", but this one is also easily refutable and is not much explored. On the other side, their atheist counterparts still revolve around Epicurean problem of evil - the most ironclad argument so far for atheism, Euthyphro dilemma, problem of hell, free will-omniscience problem, and omnipotence paradox. Oftenly they just say various refutations to theists' arguments, for example: Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, Russell's teapot, aseity-sovereignty paradox, or anthropic principle. Everything that must be said has been said, and there are barely any significant developments. What's left to do nowadays is just completing our knowledge about Darwinian evolution, neuroscience, and astrophysical understanding of our universe. On the philosophy of god and religion? There is not much left to say.

In 1997, biologist Stephen Jay Gould coined the term non-overlapping magisteria, which means to suggest that science and religion each has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority, and these two domains do not overlap. I think this is a more important point to start moving. We should have reached the era of what is so-called "post-religionism". In post-religionism, philosophy then serves, not to prove or disprove what view (theism, atheism, or agnosticism) is more correct. Philosophy then caters to guide a polity that allows atheists, agnostics, and theists to live in harmony. It becomes the purveyor and yardstick of rational discourse in crafting public policies, with regards to basic fulfillment of human rights protection for people with various worldviews. In such polity, religion that advocates killing other people from different religions, or condones slavery, rape, or genocide must be eliminated or be forced into being more progressive. The existence of speech that entrenched into public sphere, even though it comes from atheists, can be legitimately suppressed if it is indeed exercised in morally repugnant ways.

Certainty of god's existence (or nonexistence) cannot be possibly calculated if the tools appropriate for the task are not available. Since we cannot make any meaningful statements about what may exist outside of our closed system (i.e. god), then, doxastically, we are all

∃p: ¬p ∧ Bp. 

So, unless it's about football clubs, let's not talk about what religious/non-religious view is the most superior from all.


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

For my previous writings about religion: this, this, this, and this.

For more civilized debate, visit the best online religious forum in my opinion here. For one Indonesian freethinker that is not anonymous and I think well-mannered in arguing, go check Ioanes Rakhmat's Twitter timeline.

Written for #7HariMenulis. Dedicated to my theist, atheist, ignostic, nonreligious, and agnostic friends.