Skip to main content

Abstract

Demographic data shows that atheistic worldviews have been gaining ‘market share’ in the West for the past 250 years. That demographic data has never stopped religious apologists from arguing that atheistic worldviews are in terminal decline. (The writings of Alister McGrath and Gary Bouma provide a couple of contemporary examples.) Nonetheless, it would be rash to assume that this upward trend will continue in the West, let alone that it will be followed in all other parts of the globe. The worldviews of ‘new atheists’ are much the same as the worldviews of ‘old atheists’: what all atheists have in common is merely that they reject theistic beliefs. For the past 250 years, atheists have differed from one another in their willingness to engage in public defence of their atheism, and in the extent to which they are willing to ‘grind the gears’ of their theistic interlocutors. The current crop of ‘new atheists’ have much in common with previous generations of atheists who reveled in public sparring with theists; and the irritation expressed by previous generations of theists when confronted with the writing of, say, Thomas Paine or Chapman Cohen, is very much like the irritation that current theistic apologists express when confronted with the writings of, say Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. While predicting the future is clearly a mug’s game, there is no reason to think that the worldview of the ‘new atheists’ will go away any time soon; and nor is there any reason to suppose that at some not to distant date in the future, there will not be any ‘provocative’ atheists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As the editors pointed out to me, there is some question about whether, for example, Sam Harris is an irreligionist, given his endorsement of Buddhist meditative techniques. While I would be happy enough to qualify my claim so that it says only that, by and large, the New Atheists are atheists, naturalists, and irreligionists, it seems to me most likely that Harris thinks that the useful meditative practices can simply be hived off from the rest of the Buddhist religion. Note that to be an irreligionist, one need only reject all religions for oneself; it is a further step—taken by the New Atheists, but not by some other contemporary atheists—to suppose that everyone else ought also to reject religion.

  2. 2.

    For support for the claims in this paragraph, and in the following four, see, for example: Berman (1988), Thrower (2000), Flynn (2007), and Oppy and Trakakis (2009).

  3. 3.

    Just to be clear: I am not claiming that the New Atheism is the most prevalent, or the most prominent, form of contemporary atheism and naturalism (though I am also not denying this claim). My claim is that there has always been a range of attitudes that atheists and naturalists have taken towards those who disagree with them: the New Atheists are the current crop of those who opt for public confrontation, accusations of irrationality, disparagement of religion, and so forth. However, when it comes to central ontological and metaphysical beliefs, New Atheists hold the same kinds of beliefs as others who are atheists and naturalists.

  4. 4.

    Zuckerman (2007) provides a good discussion of some of these pit-falls, along with an assessment of the data to 2007.

  5. 5.

    See Norris and Inglehart (2004). For a slightly more complex conjecture, see Rees (2012).

  6. 6.

    The Global Religious Landscape: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Major Religious Groups as of 2010 (http://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-exec.aspx).

  7. 7.

    Australian Bureau of Statistics: Census 2011 http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/census?opendocument&navpos=10.

  8. 8.

    See: http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php.

  9. 9.

    http://philpapers.org/surveys/

  10. 10.

    For other misgivings about adverting to Mind-Body-Spirit literature in this context, see Lee (2007), and references therein.

  11. 11.

    See, for example: Longman (2006), Mead (2006), Shah and Toft (2006), and Hedges (2007). For critique of these examples, see Paul and Zuckerman (2007).

  12. 12.

    For a much fuller description, see Adams and Laughlin (1999).

  13. 13.

    For a range of predictions about the future of religion, see Davie et al. (2003). Davie notes, quite correctly, that no sociologists of religion predicted the Iranian revolution, or the Rushdie affair, or 9/11; but, of course, sociologists of other domains, and futurologists more generally, typically have no better track records when it comes to the prediction of particular future events.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Oppy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Oppy, G. (2017). Whither New Atheism?. In: Cotter, C., Quadrio, P., Tuckett, J. (eds) New Atheism: Critical Perspectives and Contemporary Debates. Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54964-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics