The debate between atheism and religion dates back thousands of years. It is an important debate to have because whether one likes it or not, it affects us all.
Earlier this month at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, philosopher and theologian Peter Rollins joined cosmologist and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss on stage to add their voices to this ancient debate. Rollins offered three specific critiques of New Atheism. He argued that New Atheism is merely a shadow of the fundamentalism that it attacks, that it actually strengthens fundamentalism when it directly attacks it, and that it isn’t equipped to help people experience the humility it proclaims.
Peter Rollins gives the example of alcohol abuse and how it is an attempt at self-cure. It is actually a solution to an underlying problem rather than a problem itself. Rollins goes on to say that:
In a structurally similar way, instead of seeing fundamentalism as a problem it is more helpful to see it as a defense mechanism that is providing a psychological service to the individual. ?Because of this, if someone gives up their religious fundamentalism and adopts a new system, without addressing why they embraced religious fundamentalism in the first place, the new system will simply function in the same way as the old one.
According to Rollins, fundamentalism is not a problem; it is a solution to a problem and a defense mechanism that provides comfort to some. So instead of addressing the problem lying beneath fundamentalism, New Atheism has itself become a form of fundamentalism. Rollins goes on to explain that New Atheism actually strengthens fundamentalism when it directly attacks it. He gives the following example:
Imagine that you have just had an argument with your mum. If I see this and berate you for what you said you’re more likely to defend yourself, even if you feel that you might have acted badly. In contrast, if I buy you a drink, have some small talk, and then ask how you felt about the argument, you’re more likely to admit to having overreacted.?The point here is that my direct assault on your actions naturally evokes a defense and ends up doing the opposite of what I want. Instead I must find an indirect means of bringing the issue up.
So, instead of directly attacking fundamentalism, Rollins advocates engaging in dialogue in a non-aggressive atmosphere. This, he believes, will allow people to open up about their doubts and have constructive conversations. Regarding this he says:
This approach thus operates from?within?religious discourse, drawing out those central elements that break open new possibilities and allow us to glimpse the reasons why a person might be holding onto an unhealthy and morally problematic system.
Finally, Rollins describes how New Atheism isn’t fully equipped to help people deal with their deepest existential questions. It’s through rituals and communities, according to Rollins, that one can face their struggles and angst. It’s in these communities that Rollins says we:
…come to embrace the fact that we are not the center of our own universe at a deeply personal level. We can easily understand that we are not the center of the universe in a cosmological sense while still acting in a way that betrays our embedded belief that we are the center of the universe. In contrast, the approach being called here ?New Religion? doesn’t seek to bring about a sense of humility by giving people the ?correct? way of seeing ones place in the universe, but rather by helping people encounter their own violence and encourage concern for the other through the use of various rituals.
Lawrence Krauss responded by agreeing with Rollins on many of the issues. Krauss agreed that people need some sense of identity and community. He conceded that religion does offer that but one does not have to engage in religion in order to belong to a community. Krauss believes that the reason many people see New Atheism as another form of fundamentalism is because religious people cannot handle having their belief system questioned. Whoever questions their beliefs, according to Krauss, is labeled a fundamentalist. On the issue of strengthening fundamentalism by attacking it, Krauss said that:
I don’t attack fundamentalist with the hope that I will change their mind. I attack fundamentalist hoping that I will change the minds of the majority of moderate listeners.
The conversation between Peter Rollins and Lawrence Krauss will by no means end the debate. It does however provide us with a sense of what road New Atheism and New?Religion are currently on. The good news is it seems to be the same road.
Edited by SS
