I’ve been wondering why it is that the New Atheist movement has had such a problem with sexism. I’m not talking about any of the alleged sexual misconduct here. I’m interested in why men in the movement are so often anti-feminist. The usual answer is that it is just a function of its origins: that the groups that make up the movement have traditionally been overwhelmingly male. While that’s certainly true and an important aspect of the problem, I think that there is a philosophical basis for the sexism in the movement. And it rather gets to the heart of what’s wrong with the New Atheists generally.
Human beings are not especially rational. If we didn’t already know from our experiences, psychology and neuroscience tell us that it is so. It’s very simple: we don’t have the time to make rational decisions about the vast majority of things in our lives. What’s more, most decisions don’t lend themselves to rational thinking. Consider buying a tube of toothpaste: there are endless variables, most of which are purely subjective. This may seem like a trivial example, but humans don’t do much better when picking a president, a profession, or a spouse.
The most common statement I hear from people in the New Atheist community is, “I only believe in things that I have evidence for!” But that isn’t what they mean — based upon how they act. What they mean to say is that they only believe in things that science backs them up on. But they rarely understand the science itself. They might know the basics of evolution theory and climate change, but mostly, their opinions are a leap of faith: they have decided to trust the scientific establishment.
There is nothing wrong with that. The scientific establishment is generally a lot more enlightened than other sources of knowledge. But there is nothing fundamentally different from this kind of faith and the faith a Christian might have in her priest because he, like the scientific establishment for me, has never let her down. Clearly, science has a far better track record and I think that Christian would be better off turning to science for most of her questions. But science probably doesn’t have answers for most of her questions anyway, so maybe it doesn’t matter.
There are good sources of information and bad sources of information. The problem I see with the New Atheist community is not their reliance on science. I share their reliance. But they demonstrate an awkward and troubling dependence on one aspect of science: evolution theory. And it poisons their thinking in other areas. It leads to an unconscious (and sometimes conscious) acceptance of pseudoscientific nonsense like social Darwinism, and if not for the Nazis, I’m sure that eugenics would be popular in the movement.
If it weren’t for the hubris of thinking that they are solely guided by objective reality and rationality, this mightn’t be so bad. But thinking that you are only guided by rationality makes it easy to mistake your own prejudices for The Truth™. Take, for example, Penn Jillette’s beliefs about economics and global warming. I don’t think he’s doing it any more, but his arguments against global warming were exactly the same as Jim Inhofe’s. But Jillette’s thinking was based on his libertarian ideology and Inhofe’s is based upon his reading of the Bible.
Similarly, when Richard Dawkins wrote his Dear Muslima letter, it was just his attempt to stifle speech that made him uncomfortable. There was nothing rational about it. In fact, it was an amazing example of cluelessness. It’s like telling a person with an abscessed tooth that she should get over it because many people burn to death each year. Logical, perhaps, but hardly rational.
One thing that science teaches us is that we are all fallible. The processes and institutions of science allow us to slowly muddle our way toward a better understanding of the universe. But the widespread belief among New Atheists that they are ruled by reason and rationality is a delusion — call it the “atheist delusion” if you like. And it allows them to be awfully blind to their prejudices.
I think this is also a class issue. Whether they believe or don’t believe, for poor women, the center of their community often lies within the church. The congregation fills in the gaps that social services doesn’t. They provide free meals, childcare. clothing, emotional support, and other services that women rely on for their family’s survival. I’m not saying can’t be problematic, I’m just saying that it’s more complex than belief or non-belief. Also, when you look at the level of privilege that most of the mainstream male atheist leaders have had, it’s pretty clear they don’t need to believe in anything outside of themselves. They have no reason not to assume that the world is a benevolent place and everything they need or want is going to be provided for them. It’s a very different world when you live your life poor and struggling.
Well put. I’ve written about some of these issues elsewhere. The truth is that the New Atheist movement is mostly an upper middle-class white phenomenon. I would normally add “guy,” but apparently a lot of white women are now in the movement, which is what brought much of this on.
There is supposedly a rift in the movement between the humanist atheist and the libertarian (or objectivist) atheists. But I have to say that I haven’t seen this. All the big name libertarians are of the libertarian type. And what boggles my mind is that these guys are so ignorant about white privilege. It is “We built that!” writ small. Yet these are the people who claim to be ruled by evidence.
It just shows why hubris is so dangerous. I’m sure that based upon the knowledge and experience they have, they are reasonably rational. But there is a whole universe of knowledge and experience that they are blind to. But they don’t look around for that knowledge, because the knowledge they have flatters them.
It’s interesting that you mention that it is more than belief or non-belief. I agree and would probably go further. The main thing I’ve written about the New Atheists is that they don’t understand what they claim to be against. They are clueless about theology.