The Second Wave of the New Atheism

[NeoGreen]

https://secondwavemanifesto.weebly.com/

The Second Wave of the New Atheism
A Manifesto for Secular Scriptural Scholarship ​and Religious Studies

This Manifesto was initiated in the summer of 2015 by Hector Avalos and André Gagné.

​BACKGROUND

The New Atheism is a name given to a movement represented by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom wrote best-selling books that were highly critical of religion.

Although the New Atheism does not eschew the classical arguments against the existence of God, its focus is primarily on the immorality and harmful consequences of religious thinking itself. For some, the New Atheism is not merely atheistic, but also anti-theistic.

Another main feature of the New Atheism is a secular apocalyptic outlook born out of the events of September 11, 2001. A secular apocalyptic outlook refers to the view that religion has the potential to destroy humanity and our entire biosphere.

However, many secular and religious critics of the New Atheism have charged the New Atheism with a number of flaws. One is a lack of expertise in scriptural and religious studies that has led Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens to make pronouncements that are rightly viewed as simplistic or inaccurate in some cases.

(snip)

A MANIFESTO FOR SECULAR SCRIPTURAL SCHOLARSHIP AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Insofar as we believe that religious belief has the potential to incite actions that could ultimately lead to the destruction of our planet, we identify ourselves with what is called “the New Atheism.” We affirm that a Second Wave of the New Atheism exists insofar as that descriptor encompasses self-identified atheist scriptural scholars or scholars of religion who:

Are academically trained experts in the study of religion and sacred scriptures (e.g., the Bible, Quran, and any other text deemed sacred on religious grounds);

Regard activism as a fundamental orientation of all scholarship insofar they agree with Noam Chomsky’s view that “it is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies”;

Uphold and defend freedom of expression;

Question the notion that religious thinking is itself good or ethical;

Acknowledge that human ethics need not depend on religion;

Welcome as wide a diversity of scholars as possible in terms of ethnic self- identification, gender, or sexual orientation;

​​ Recognize that most of biblical scholarship is still largely part of an ecclesial-academic complex that renders it very distinct from other areas of the humanities and social sciences, especially insofar as it seeks to protect and preserve religion as a valuable feature of human existence;

Aim to expose the bibliolatry that still lies at the core of biblical studies insofar as most biblical scholars believe the Bible should be a vital part of modern cultures or bears superior ethical values;

Advocate the discontinuation of the use of any sacred scripture as a moral authority in the modern world;

Acknowledge that the traditional scriptural canons are an artificial theological construct, and encourages scriptural scholarship to study all texts considered authoritative or sacred by ancient religions;

Call attention to the ethical advances or positive features of texts in the ancient Near East that have not received due attention;

Seek to make scriptural and religious studies relevant by encouraging scholars of sacred scriptures and religions to engage in public discussions and/or use cyber-media to educate the public about issues such as the role of religion in violence and the use of sacred scriptures to oppose gay rights, contraception, gender equality, and other social and human rights issues that should be adjudicated on non-religious grounds;

Encourage secular scholars of religion and sacred scriptures to help establish policies that are based on reason and democratic values instead of religion; they should be the guardians of a strict separation between religion and state;

View cooperation with scientists as a necessary strategy to challenge those who use sacred scriptures to deny the existence of evolution or anthropogenic climate change, among other general scientific conclusions;

Work to ensure that professional organizations of scriptural and religious studies, such as the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion, insist on methodological naturalism, and not theological methodologies, in their basic approach to all research presented at its meetings, as is the case with all other areas of the humanities and social sciences;

Affirm that religious obscurantism can only be countered through education;

Insist on critical education that focuses on a historical and social understanding and development of religion; that is, teaching and education that is fact-based instead of faith-based; people should know ABOUT religions and religious texts, not in the sense of maintaining the value of any religious tradition, but to develop critical thinking about religions;

Regard the study of the Bible, the Quran, and other sacred scriptures as important in understanding western history and modern culture, but without seeking to retain their moral authority.


Scholars who share these views may not identify themselves as any sort of New Atheists or as part of any Second Wave of the New Atheism. Indeed, some of the following signatories do not necessarily apply those labels to themselves. When the co-authors say that “a Second Wave of the New Atheism exists...” they are affirming the existence of people who already think this way, but may not have identified as such explicitly up to now.

However, we invite all scholars who share these views to join us in expressing, or putting into practice, any or all of the ideas and goals that we have outlined here.

[Voltaire2]

1. TL;DR

I don't think a lot of atheists are going to choose a career in biblical studies. Seems like a manifesto for a very limited audience.

[Maggiemayhem]

2. Atheists have read and studied the Bible

moreso than your average self identified Christian. Their reading and comprehending the scriptures is what led many of them to reject it as directive from a supernatural being.

[Voltaire2]

4. I agree but this manifesto is about academic studies.

[NeoGreen]

3. No doubt...

...but they do/will exist.

I like the framework where Wave 1 was a practical criticism on the negative effects of religion and where Wave 2 should be focused on criticizing the current biblical scholarship, such as it is and the text.

Bart Ehrman could be a good example.

Wave 2 doesn't have to be as large, popular or celebrated as Wave 1 to be effective.

I found the following as an interesting and related POV:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2017/03/christianity-thriving-critics-arent-enough/

Is Christianity Thriving Because its Critics Aren’t Doing Enough?

[Cartoonist]

5. This would end religion

Insist on critical education that focuses on a historical and social understanding and development of religion; that is, teaching and education that is fact-based instead of faith-based; people should know ABOUT religions and religious texts, not in the sense of maintaining the value of any religious tradition, but to develop critical thinking about religions

Those who want religion in schools would never agree to such a ciricculum. They want reinforcement of religion, not critical thinking. They know that they are brainwashing their kids and don't want anything that would help kids think for themselves.

[NeoGreen]

6. You say that like it's a...

...bad thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I don't think study of *scripture* is particularly important; it's modern religious thinking

that critics of religion should be familiar with.

It doesn't matter much what ancient writings say; they are just writings, often from anonymous authors and with unclear context or editing process. Rather than being coherent arguments for religion, they tend to just assume they are authoritative, and thus lay down the law without reasoning. And it's not as if a religion must have scripture to be a religion.

When discussing any pros or cons of religions, it's the actual history that matters. How they've influenced ethics, laws, political policy, relations with other ethnic groups or religions, and so on. And how reasonable it is to follow the precepts of a religion doesn't come just (or even mainly) from scripture, but from the modern-day philosophy of a religion (including how it justifies itself as a feasible belief system), and its current views. If the emphasis is on the authority of ancient scriptures, then it may be worth knowing the scripture thoroughly to point out contradictions or awful moral standpoints, but if followers aren't literalists, it may not be that useful in argument.

[NeoGreen]

8. I agree, but...

...given that so much of today's "modern" religious thinking is derived from the scriptures for the explicit purpose to prop up scripture, I can see the systematic study from a skeptical point of view providing a beneficial framework for criticism.

Recognize that most of biblical scholarship is still largely part of an ecclesial-academic complex that renders it very distinct from other areas of the humanities and social sciences, especially insofar as it seeks to protect and preserve religion as a valuable feature of human existence;

Aim to expose the bibliolatry that still lies at the core of biblical studies insofar as most biblical scholars believe the Bible should be a vital part of modern cultures or bears superior ethical values;