After reading the piece, Limits of ‘New Atheists’ published in The Guardian (July 24 2012), I came to the conclusion that the author was trapped in the second stage of reaction to new ideas of atheism. In his quest to establish ‘The Limits of New Atheists’, the author made very absurd and ridiculous claims, portraying unknowingly his internalised insecurities and animosities. He demonstrated lack of grasp and understanding of the issues at stake, espousing peripheral and superficial arguments, criticisms and propositions in his attempt to determine the limits of new atheism.



The author simply rehearsed those worn out arguments, which have been used over the centuries to stoke the flames of atheophobia – the irrational fear, hatred and intolerance of atheists – and to justify the oppression, persecution and discrimination against none theistic people. He made it sound as if the advent of new atheism would mark the end of the world. His message was clear ‘Beware of the New Atheists’. He tried, but unsuccessfully, to demonise and immoralise atheism, blaming the new atheists for whatever he perceived to be the evils in the contemporary world.

The author was correct in saying that new atheists have discarded their ‘second class citizenship’ role of persons who should be seen and not heard. Yes, the new atheists have rejected their traditional role of keeping silent in the face of religious oppression. They have realised that, indeed, the man dies in him who keeps silent in the face of tyranny - religious tyranny. Hence they have decided, for good, to break their silence and take up a new and pro-active role. The new atheists have gone ahead to speak out and make their voices heard on issues of global significance. And what is wrong with that? I ask. Is that not a good development? After all, is freedom of expression not for everyone? Is free speech not for all human beings both those who are theists or atheists?

And instead of acknowledging new atheism as a welcome development – as a sign of hope and renewal, the author went ahead to malign new atheists heaping all the blame for the world’s problems on them. Lest we forget, the period in the history of Europe when atheists and freethinkers spoke out against the excesses and exploitation by the church was called the era enlightenment.

I am wondering why the author could not see the obvious connection between the liberating and enlightening ideas of new atheism and the dawn of a new era of Enlightenment for the world. Instead he went ahead to make unsubstantiated claims about new atheism and new atheists. I will only address a few of them.

First of all, the author alleged that the new atheists were in contest with God over justice and injustices in the world. Nothing can be farther from the truth. For the new atheists, God is not there, God does not exist – God is a figment of human imagination. So atheists cannot be pitched in a battle with something or somebody that is not there. The new atheists are rather in contest with theists-with god believers, particularly those of them who want to impose their idea of god and of religious good on others by force; those who want us to embrace their dogmas or be killed. History is replete with instances of cruelty and injustices perpetrated in God’s name – the jihads, crusades, inquisition and terrorism.

Nigeria is currently waging a war against these godly and bloody merchants of death and destruction. Hence I was surprised that the author attributed ‘widespread cruelty and violation of justice in the world to the claims of atheism. He further attributed the ‘nihilistic yet impeccably democratic legalisation’ of ‘the use of various drugs, the practices of prostitution, contraception, homosexuality, same sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, cloning, in-vitro fertilisation, and hollowing-out of human dignity through genetic manipulation, human trafficking, and other new forms of slavery; the inequality in the distribution of goods, the depletion of the earth’s resources, and the increase in poverty, famine and illness’ to atheism. The author included what he called ‘the brutal campaign waged against religion in the 20th century by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia’ among the discontents of atheism.

Personally, I do not agree that some of the things he listed like homosexuality, contraception, cloning are evil. But that is by the way. The author has forgotten that in today’s world, theists have always out-numbered atheists – both old and new.

Religious god-believing people have always been in the majority. So how could he justifiably blame, for instance social inequality, poverty or disease in the world on the ideas of new atheists who constitute a small minority in the world.

The author actually blames new atheists for what theists do. Meanwhile, who among the new atheists – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and late Christopher Hitchens  have in their writings advocated or endorsed human trafficking, the depletion of earth’s resources, inequality etc? Who is actually in the business of destroying something this-worldly in order to inherit something other-worldly? Is it the theists or the atheists?

How could the author make all these generalisations and allegations without quoting these great minds who have written extensively? Throughout the piece he did not cite or make reference to any of the books, articles or interviews by Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens to substantiate his claims. Instead he went ahead to draw inferences from his unsubstantiated claims to justify his attacks and animosity against the new atheists. I mean, should I call this one of the marks of the new theists?




For Additional Information on this topic, read Nigeria: Five Things to Know about Religious Violence by Jahnabi Barooah





Image 1 A jihadist mob in Kano, Nigeria.


COMMENTS ARE CLOSED ON THIS THREAD (due to over-heated dispute)