May 4, 2008...3:52 pm
The Mythology of the New Atheists
A friend from the Internet writes:
Mythology defines who we are, and defines the way the world is. Mythology offers models of virtue and ideals of humanity in their heroes, and in their dramas they define many aspects of the societies it influences. Myths and religions are intertwined deeply. Often our values are derived out of mythic thinking in way that we don’t recognize.
There is much to be learned in the cultural anthropological studies of mythology, much that is often neglected by so-called proponents of science.
The most important lesson is that myths are not necessarily false, they are not lies, and they often point to or express important truths. Mature myths can play a very positive role in life, adding value and meaning. Immature myths, on the other hand, can distort our thinking and our understanding of the world.
Is Every Believer a Fundamentalist?
When a religious thinker turns towards their myths, they can either look at them as allegorical, so that they generally point to something greater than the literal myths, and in this way they relate the mythic heroes to the life situations and circumstances that they face. The other approach to looking at myths is to take them strictly literally. The literalists are generally referred to as fundamentalists, and those who take their myths literally are typically responsible for the worst side of religion.
To simplify their attack on religions, the New Atheists play the trick of only recognizing those religious movements that are literalists as legitimate religion, since then there are claims about the world that can be readily shown to be scientifically false. The fact that many religious movements are not literalists, or have worked out ways to be compatible with science is dealt with by simply claiming those are not actually legitimate religions since they don’t really believe in their religious books.
Mythology is a Sneaky Thing
On first glance, you might not think that the New Atheists have any mythology. After all, they claim that their views are all based on rationalism and empiricism, and they often proudly claim to believe only in what science can show.
But mythology is a sneaky thing, it often infiltrates in ways that we do not initially see. But because our minds by their nature think in images, especially self-images, and those images define much of how we think about the world and our place in it, myths creep in. If you examine the New Atheists carefully, they have their own myths which are in many respects a mirror of Christianity.
Us vs. Them
A central motif of much mythic thinking is to divide the world into some form of “us,” and “them.” For the New Atheists that division is obviously atheism vs. religion, which is a mirror of Christians who divide the world into believers and non-believers.
The New Atheists have perpetuated the Enlightenment myth that there is a war between science and religion. They imagine themselves being an oppressed group suffering at the hands of religion. (The fact that the New Atheists are largely made up of relatively affluent white males who enjoy the least oppression of any social group in our society doesn’t really fit with their myth, but they conveniently ignore that, for as with much of their mythology, facts are secondary.)
The view that there is a long-running war between science and religion plays into the New Atheists’ demonization of religion. They can create a mythology of scientists as heroes, noble warriors fighting for all things noble and just against the essentially evil opponent, religion. This can be a dangerous myth, one that is common through many religions, as it is a justification for violence. One only needs to look to the Marxists to see the violence that the myth of a war between science and religion can potentially lead to.
God is Not a Unicorn
Atheists allow their own mythology to distort their thinking about the myths of others. The constant comparison of the notion of God to an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, or a child’s imaginary friend is a result of their thinking in terms of their own myths, for they must see the other as simplistic and irrational so that they can hold themselves above them as sophisticated and rational.
The question of the existence of God is in Western philosophy one of the most central existential questions there is. The question of whether He exists or not has profound implications for ethics, political science, aesthetics, ontology, metaphysics, and many other domains of thought outside science.
God as understood philosophically is not some invisible super-hero in the sky, He’s not some being to taken as literally true as represented in some mythological account with no other dimension or implications to His being.
Unicorns are neither the cause of the cosmos nor the cause of the individual. They are not the good that grounds both the world and human nature. They are a creature, not a creator. God is not understood as just a mythological creature, but as a principle which informs all it creates with meaning. They are completely different classes of being, and have completely different ways of understanding them.
Unicorns are a contingent, particular, finite, kind of imaginary animal imagined to be living within nature and thus are within the domain of natural science to investigate. God is a non-contingent, transcendent, universal, eternal, infinite, absolute principle, which cannot be the subject of natural sciences, and can only be understood through either revelation, philosophical reasoning, or mysticism, not science.
Claiming Einstein and the Founding Fathers
There are other many instances of mythic thinking shaping and warping their understanding of the world that pop up. For instance, the Founding Fathers of the US are often claimed to be predominantly Deists, while in fact this was a minority view. Some have even expressed the bizarre view that they were closet atheists. To counter the Christian Right’s misrepresentation that the Founding Fathers shaped a Christian nation, they invent their own counter-misrepresentation.
There are figures that they would like to claim, such as Einstein, so that they can add him to their pantheon of heroes, so they cook up the excuse that pantheism is somehow atheism. Einstein was certainly not an atheist, and actually complained about their attempts to claim him as one. But the New Atheists want him as a hero to add to their mythology, so the facts are really not important to them.
There was a certain triumphalism beginning in the nineteenth century, and carrying on through the twentieth that religion would die, science and reason would eliminate it and ultimately rule. The fact that religion has persisted is something that seems to have frustrated the New Atheists, as they now lash out at the foe they once were so sure they would overcome easily.
An Immature Mythology
In the end, looking at the mythology of the New Atheists two negative traits stand out.
First is that they take their myths completely literally. Because the mythology is not very mature, many of their myths can’t really be treated as allegorical.
Second, in taking them literally, they are sure that they are noble warriors fighting an evil force in the world, so their myths reinforce the idea of conflict and hostility. They are sure that they are oppressed, and have various martyrs they can point to which makes them angry. They are sure that religion and science necessarily conflict.
But inasmuch as they themselves are a religious movement, they have become that which they hate. Their mythology reinforces a view that causes a hatred and hostility towards other religions. We can only hope for their sake that one day they see through their myths, overcome their immature self-images, and grow into a more clear and accepting view of the way the world is.
Note: If you are interested in the study of mythology, a good place to start is the works of Joseph Campbell. He had an incredible breadth of knowledge of the myths of the world, and a great amount of insight into the patterns, meanings, and importance of mythology.


15 Comments
May 4, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Regarding: >>The New Atheists have perpetuated the Enlightenment myth that there is a war between science and religion. They imagine themselves being an oppressed group suffering at the hands of religion.<<
Gee, and all this time I thought it was the theists that were complaining that the atheistic sciences people were denying the the religiously bent people equal opportunity, as in… “Expelled…No intelligence allowed”
May 4, 2008 at 10:31 pm
This post is doubleplusgood -crimestop duckspeak.
May 5, 2008 at 1:36 am
Hmm. Could it be possible that both Intelligent Designers *and* the New Atheists aren’t the victims they like to pretend they are?
May 5, 2008 at 3:43 am
This has to be the most braindead view of atheism I’ve ever seen. If you’re going to try to claim that atheism is a ‘religion’ or ‘mytholoy’, at least try not to misrepresent both of those words (along with ‘atheism’ itself) so consistently.
May 5, 2008 at 8:25 am
>If you’re going to try to claim that atheism is a ‘religion’ or ‘mytholoy’, at least try not to misrepresent both of those words (along with ‘atheism’ itself) so consistently.
How specifically were they misrepresented? If you have initial issues with the definitions/accounts of mythology or religion, what are they? Just saying they are mistaken without misrepresented how is not very compelling. It sounds like the typical contentless argument from a typical religious person.
May 5, 2008 at 8:34 am
Typorama above, meant to say:
How specifically were they misrepresented? If you have issues with the initial definitions/accounts of mythology or religion, what are they? Just saying they are mistaken without explaining how is not very compelling. It sounds like the typical contentless argument of a typical religious person.
May 5, 2008 at 10:38 am
Look at the ‘Us Vs. Them’ section - that’s one small part of what a mythology can be, but that on its own doesn’t make something a ‘mythology’. The next section is even worse, because it starts with ‘There are other many instances of mythic thinking shaping and warping their understanding of the world that pop up’ and then fails to mention anything even approaching ‘mythic thinking’. Sure, plenty of atheists make the claim that the Founding Fathers (or at least some of them) were Deists or atheists. Under what definition does that make atheism a ‘mythology’? Are we reducing every worldview to a mythology here?
And of course, ‘God is Not a Unicorn’, although the point of comparing God to a unicorn seems to have escaped dawkinsdouche. What he’s saying here is that atheists misrepresent or misunderstand what people mean when they talk about ‘God’. (Erroneously, in my opinion, but that’s beside the point). Again, what does that have to do with atheism being a mythology?
May 5, 2008 at 4:05 pm
>… the ‘Us Vs. Them’ section - that’s one small part of what a mythology can be, but that on its own doesn’t make something a ‘mythology’.
Of course, but there are many of pieces to their mythology, the us v. then thing is simply one motif that is often repeated.
>and then fails to mention anything even approaching ‘mythic thinking’.
The quote says that their mythic worldview warps their view of reality. The various errors that are described are examples of that warping.
>Under what definition does that make atheism a ‘mythology’?
You are misreading the article. It doesn’t ever claim atheism is a mythology. The title is, “The Mythology of the New Atheists.” “New Atheism” is a term describing the group of atheists who perpetuate Dawkins (incredibly adolescent) hostility, (incredibly adolescent) persecution complex, and his (incredibly adolescent) caricatures of religion.
>Are we reducing every worldview to a mythology here?
They are two things that are somewhat related. Typically when groups form with a shared worldview, myths are inevitable, though perhaps there are some groups that have managed to avoid this. Keep in mind that mythology is not inherently bad, a mature mythology (with a mature way of relating to it) is very positive to society, there are a number of Anthropology studies that have shown this.
>What he’s saying here is that atheists misrepresent or misunderstand what people mean when they talk about ‘God’.
Right, due to their mythology they have a grossly simplified view of what their enemies think. This is similar to how some of the more fundamentalist Christians will account for the views of their enemies as Satanism.
>Again, what does that have to do with atheism being a mythology?
Atheism is not a mythology (just as theism per se is not a mythology). That was never claimed in the article. What the article was describing is how one group of atheists, the New Atheists (effectively led by Dawkins who, like a good religious leader, has done much to perpetuate the myths), are both perpetuating some older Enlightenment myths, and adding their own. In this way they are forming a particular group with a shared identity and self-image, and a set of shared myths about who their enemies are.
May 5, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Wow. How christian is it to use a word like douche? You are truly a piece of work. And all of your arguments are flawed. Non-belief in something that can be asserted without evidence is not a belief system. You can attempt to change the meanings of words, but that doesn’t mean your definition is now correct. How pathetic your arguments are. And how re-hashed your arguments are. You’ve got to do better than that if you want to change minds. Otherwise — you are just “preaching to the choir” and are only pacifying those that believe as you do, to make yourselves all feel better. Yuck.
May 5, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hi Apalled, I am not the owner of this site (though I do know him online). He’s not a Christian, FYI, nor am I.
The particular choir being preached to is largely atheists and agnostics who are sick of Dawkins and his army of drones (who surprisingly typically sound just like you). If you want to complain about someone rehashing arguments, then it would be a good practice to avoid it yourself.
Kind Regards,
SRG
May 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“Non-belief in something that can be asserted without evidence is not a belief system.”
That’s true. But most of the new atheist types you see online have built a whole belief system on top of their non-belief. That’s what this article (not written by me but by a friend) is about.
As for the douche question, maybe I am being a douche for calling Dawkins a douche, but I can live with that. I have been called worse by the Dawkins-bots.
May 6, 2008 at 2:38 am
SRG, you refer to Dawkins as a ‘religious leader’. You’ve clearly got your own ‘myths’ about what, exactly, counts as a ‘religious leader’, and I’m guessing they apply only for the duration of this argument. I’m not particularly fond of Dawkins myself, but this line of argument is easily as childish as anything he could come up with. ‘Dawkins is a religious leader! New Atheists practice an ill-defined form of ‘Mythic thinking’!’
Er…not really. You could just say you think they’re wrong, of course, but I guess that doesn’t follow the traditional tactic of trying to claim that atheism (all right, ‘New Atheism’
is a religion? You and dawkinsdouche are also forgetting that a huge number of atheists, including those who dislike Dawkins, believe that there is a ‘war’ between science and religion (I use that term loosely), that religion and atheism tend to clash and, in some cases, cannot easily co-exist, and argue against what you’d call a ’simplified’ view of what theists think (mainly because theists keep telling us that’s what they think…
What you’re describing is in no way unique to Dawkins or people who agree with him.
In fact, you’re simplifying these common atheist stances easily as much as you accuse atheists of simplifying theistic ones. What you’re arguing against here is a childish caricature of ‘New Atheist’ beliefs, then turning around and claiming that those are examples of ‘mythic thinking’. Of course, there are atheists who do take such a simplified view of the world, just as there are theists who do the same, but neither is particularly common.
May 6, 2008 at 7:57 am
VB,
The NAs take a world-view that answers the big questions of who we are, what we are, what the world is, and why we are here (a small amount of which is actually answered by of science). Their answer to the latter is especially religious in character. They explain what our highest experience in relating to the cosmos should be (a sense of wonder at the cosmos as science has revealed it). They have a set of ethics (standard liberal ethics). They have a set of stories about who they are, who their enemies are, and how the world is that are fictions and only based on stories (the war of science vs. religion, hagiographies of scientists, demonizations of “religion,” with carefully twisted accounts of religious violence, etc.). So they have a huge imaginary world they have constructed that only maps to reality in a very warped way, but maps well enough to get around in generally. They have a set of core doctrines that they are deeply certain of (materialist monism, metaphysical naturalism, Progress, evolution, etc) (not all of which I disagree with, but that’s besides the point, I don’t have a deep certainty in any of them). They have a stunning lack of any real curiosity or interest in actually understanding what other religions entail, especially what the intellectual traditions in those religions have to say. The stories that make up that imaginary world follow that traditional patterns of mythology. They even have few books whose core teachings they will defend against all criticism to the point that they seem to have taken on a certain sacredness. It looks enough like a religion to me. Things that it lacks that make up traditional religions are largely organizational (no churches, formally ordained priests, etc.), but if you look at world religions, that’s not a necessary component of all religions. There are plenty of Taoist and Hindu schools that have no organization to speak of.
So what is your definition of religion?
Certainly many NAs would debate that they are a religious movement, but that’s because:
1) They’ve never seriously and sincerely studied comparative religion and comparative mythology since they are convinced they have no reason to, and when they do examine it they are so prejudiced against it, they can’t really even begin objectively understand it. I say this based on my history of hundreds of long discussions with NAs (seriously, the God Delusion’s been out a long time now) on the topic of religion on various web forums and in person. I have yet to meet one that can give me a good account of Zen, Advaita or Taoism without quickly turning to Wikipedia’s mediocre articles (I won’t fix them, they are full of handy markers that prove people are cribbing). Hell, they can’t even give a decent account of Christian or Islamic theology, since they are so attached to their assumption of fideism. Most can’t even offer a reasonable definition of religion that includes all the stuff traditionally studied by scholars of comparative religion.
2) As far as I can tell, they’re not especially inclined to self-reflection. I’m sad to say it, but it’s been a pretty consistent experience. Most atheists who are inclined to self-reflection are not signing up to angrily bash “religion.” I am an atheist, and I’d like to imagine I am inclined to self-reflection.
The fact that they attack a thing they call “religion” is besides the point. That thing has nothing to do with what any serious student of religion knows it to be, it’s an imaginary foe.
May 6, 2008 at 1:05 pm
An imaginary foe that crops up again and again, it seems. I’m well aware of what type of religion you’re talking about, but I have no idea what makes you think it’s non-existant. The fundamentalist religious belief that divides the world into believers and non-believers, and which condemns the latter to hell after death and exile before it, is all too real. It’s not the only type of religion out there - far from it - but it does exist. Have you never had someone condemn you to hell for your non-belief, regardless of how polite or non-confrontational you were about it? You’ve never had someone claim that the Bible says evolution didn’t happen, therefore it didn’t, all discussion over and you’ll go to hell for disagreeing? If not, you’ve been extraordinarily lucky, because I come across people like that on an almost daily basis. That’s the type of religious belief that’s harmful.
The ’serious student of religion’ is only one type of religious person. The other, far more vocal kind is the narrow minded jackass I’ve just described, and it’s anything but an ‘imaginary foe’.
And who are these imaginary atheists you’re talking about in the first paragraph? I’ve been active in online atheist communities and have found, consistently, that they’re largely made up of ex-Christians (and to a lesser extent ex-Muslims and Jews), including a large number of people who have studied religion and mythology both before and after their deconversion. Of course, there are plenty of other atheists who really do have no idea about religion and who seem to be playing an elaborate game of ‘follow the leader’. Neither of those groups can be easily differentiated by how much they agree with Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or by how readily they identify themselves as ‘New Atheists’. It simply isn’t that clear-cut a situation.
As well as that, you’re assuming that these New Atheists should have a level of religious knowledge far higher than what most religious people themselves have. Zen? Advaita? Taoism? Your average devout Christian or Muslim is unlikely to even know what those last two are. Does this make them similarly unqualified to talk about or criticise other religions?
May 6, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I said their foe was imaginary, which was perhaps confusing. The NAs (not all atheists) issue is simply that they take “religion” to be their foe. When they describe their foe, it’s clear that they are labeling fundamentalism as religion (and I am always very critical of fundamentalism), and when I try to correct them on this simple error, rather than accepting this, they twist and turn. At the same time when discussing Christianity or Islam specifically, they follow the same pattern of assuming that the whole is really somehow fundamentalist/literalist, then not simply correcting the error. They also assume the whole of religion is fideist, and when pressed might narrow down to Abrahamic religions (or might not), but from there simply dig in their heels. They also have serious issues with very sloppy use of the term “superstition.”
>And who are these imaginary atheists you’re talking about in the first paragraph?
I truly wish they were imaginary. But rather they are the horde of jackasses I have debated many and various topics relating to religion and atheism with on reddit, metafilter, on certain comparative religion sites (where they invariably become resident religion-bashing atheist trolls until they are moderated or banned), and in many and various blog comments (and occasionally on Plastic though thankfully people there tend to be smarter). I kind of expect Hitchens is probably one of them too (”Religion Spoils Everything”), though I try to ignore him, and I’ll never pay for any of that smarmy bastard’s books, and I don’t know that I would really read it if I got it from the library. Politics spoils everything.
>As well as that, you’re assuming that these New Atheists should have a level of religious knowledge far higher than what most religious people themselves have. Zen? Advaita? Taoism?
If they are going to proclaim the whole of religion to be evil, then Hell yes, they should know just what they are saying. Why shouldn’t they? If I said the whole of some other domain was evil where there was a mix of good and bad, you might take exception. The level of knowledge that religious people have is irrelevant. If they proclaim atheism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. as Satanism somewhere I hang out, I’ll correct them and hold them to the same standard. I happen to run into a lot of NAs.
>Does this make them similarly unqualified to talk about or criticise other religions?
No, it makes them unqualified to curse the whole of religion. But I doubt any would be so ignorant as to do that.
Please note that I am an atheist. I am an ex-Christian, and now reject that faith. But I am also a Buddhist. I do not have any secret bias for the religions typically slammed, but I will correct things when they inadvertently contain my religion in their criticisms, or when they offer criticisms that are false, especially when they say dumb things about Christianity or Islam. I don’t expect most people to have the same level of understanding of the world’s religion or philosophy as I do, all the same, when they say things on those topics that are simply wrong, I am going to correct them. And many NAs are both ignorant of religious studies and are philosophical naifs.
Leave a Reply