Wednesday, 6 October 2010

The New Atheism debate, continued...

Dear reader, our blog has moved to a new address.

Do come on over (and change your bookmarks accordingly):

Is it "new", is it "shrill", is it "over"? Ever since The God Delusion there's has been an avalanche of debate and discussion about the kind of forthright non-belief epitomised by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

We at New Humanist have published plenty of New Atheist type arguments, as well as critiques from humanist and other perspectives. Judging by the feedback we get the non-religious community (if there is such a thing) is pretty evenly split about whether public expressions of religion requires a blunt and unapologetic response, or whether such an uncompromisingly tone is in the end off putting.

We debated the drawbacks of New Atheism at a recent event at the RSA (you can listen it in full here), and editor Caspar Melville wrote a piece for the Guardian, criticising New Atheism and suggesting a move beyond, which triggered a huge response – more than 400 comments on the Guardian website, hundreds more on Richard Dawkins' website. Not all of them were complimentary. See how Caspar responded to his critics, and, just published today, read Ophelia Benson's case for why he was wrong.
blog comments powered by Disqus