![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/84\/2011\/11\/bizarro_atheists.jpg\" "\\"bizarro_atheists\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nR. Joseph Hoffman, a professor at the New England Conservatory and blogger at The New Oxonian<\/a> has some harsh words for the New Atheists in a recent essay \u201cAtheism\u2019s Little Idea<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n I mention Skepticon because to my mind the meeting is further evidence of the crisis that besets atheism. It cannot quite embrace humanism at the margins, the solution to which for certain ecumenical atheists is to fiddle with the definition of humanism by rolling out the dough ever thinner. It cannot represent skepticism in a methodological way because science and philosophy and even theology have been there and do it. It cannot lay claim to helping people in a direct and positive (as opposed to a merely rhetorical way) because it isn\u2019t, after all, a social welfare movement.<\/p>\n It wants like Pirandello\u2019s lost characters, a cause, an author, something that defines it and sets it apart: science, reason, empathy, concern for human health, but ends up sounding like a nightmare version of a Miss America contestant prompted to give her world peace response.<\/p>\n What atheism and humanism have needed for a long time and once came close to having was a think tank to deal with the theoretical issues of these different movements. It may say worlds about the nature of atheism that this project failed, under the name of secular humanism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I agree with Hoffman that the resurgent atheist movement has spent a lot more time debunking religion than offering their own philosophical and ethical ideas for the other side to critique. \u00a0And I agree with Hoffman that this weakness seems to be baked in to the new skepticism. \u00a0But I don\u2019t think his demands that the atheist movement be other that what it is make much sense.<\/p>\n Expecting a unified atheist or humanist movement to build up interesting philosophical ideas is like expecting libertarians and social conservatives to construct a coherent Republican Party. \u00a0Having a common enemy might strengthen a coalition, but it doesn\u2019t mean everyone who\u2019s found their way under the big tent will be able to work together when they\u2019re given an opportunity to do something besides resist the foe.<\/p>\n Here are a couple of the things I\u2019ve turned out to majorly disagree with some other atheists about: morality is objective, transhumanism<\/a> (and gnosticism) are awesome, putting tight constraints on your future self (possibly through covenant marriage<\/a>) is a pretty good idea. \u00a0That\u2019s just off the top of my head. \u00a0As a result, I\u2019d be more likely to heed advice from some Christians than from some intensely relativist atheists.<\/p>\n Atheists do have ideas about philosophy and ethics, but, if you want to talk about them, you need to identify yourself with some other adjective beyond \u2018atheist\u2019 or \u2018skeptic\u2019 (or \u2018humanist\u2019 too, since I\u2019ve never heard the same definition twice for that word). \u00a0And I\u2019m all in favor of individual <\/em>atheists putting their cards on the table and giving other people the opportunity to hold their feet to the fire.<\/p>\n But, as a group, we\u2019ve got about as much in common as the members of Mensa or Ravelry<\/a>, so it makes just as little sense to interrogate us and expect us to contribute en masse<\/em> as it does to expect a single, coherent moral theory from the knitters of Ravelry. \u00a0That rules out the purpose that Hoffman expects the New Atheist to\u00a0fulfill, and I\u2019d like to suggest a different telos<\/em>.<\/p>\n Atheism does have some pretty significant similarities to the LGBT movement. \u00a0For many people, outing themselves as an atheist means losing their connection to their families and communities (cf the NYT\u2019<\/em>\u2018s recent feature on African-American atheists<\/a>). \u00a0An atheist community<\/em> offers support while people deal with the upheaval, but this doesn\u2019t require a unified moral philosophy. \u00a0The LGBT movement has plenty of internal divisions about the ideal form of sexual and emotional relationship, but that doesn\u2019t stop groups like PFLAG<\/a> from doing a lot of good.<\/p>\n The other major role for atheists-as-a-group is as defenders of science education and religious freedom. \u00a0Hoffman thinks that scientists already have the first goal covered, but it\u2019s a mistake to expect that they\u2019ll do all the heavy-lifting of lobbying. \u00a0Scientist don\u2019t spend all their time on advocacy because then they wouldn\u2019t have time to be scientists<\/em>. \u00a0And plenty of the skills that make someone a good researcher don\u2019t lend themselves to organizing or PR work.<\/p>\n Fighting the anti-science wing of American religious conservatism is a completely different job than just promoting and explaining science. \u00a0Scientists are used to working in a world where empiricism is a common presupposition and you don\u2019t need to address objections of the type: \u201cradiocarbon dating is a fraud by God to test our faith.\u201d \u00a0Arguing with these kinds of people is difficult, exhausting, and necessary<\/em>, since they tend to get elected to school boards and Congress.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n