This article was downloaded by: [BYU Brigham Young University]

On: 07 November 2014, At: 08:01

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Media and Religion

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjmr20

The New Atheism and the Formation of

the Imagined Secularist Community
a

Richard Cimino & Christopher Smith

a

Hofstra University

Independent Scholar
Published online: 18 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Richard Cimino & Christopher Smith (2011) The New Atheism and the
Formation of the Imagined Secularist Community, Journal of Media and Religion, 10:1, 24-38, DOI:
10.1080/15348423.2011.549391
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2011.549391

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

Journal of Media and Religion, 10:2438, 2011

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1534-8423 print/1534-7701 online
DOI: 10.1080/15348423.2011.549391

The New Atheism and the Formation of the

Imagined Secularist Community
Richard Cimino
Hofstra University

Christopher Smith
Independent Scholar

This article looks at how the new atheist phenomenon has been interpreted and appropriated by
those involved in atheist and secular humanist organizations. We see a connection between new
atheism as a broad social phenomenon and the publicly emerging needs and desires of secularists;
they are both cause and effect of the transformation of experience with the expansion of electronic
communication technologies. While even some secularists claim the new atheists are doing more
harm than good, we argue that such critiques ultimately miss the function of the books. Taken
collectively they provide a highly diverse population of secularists with a common and general set
of issues and ideas in which to imagine a sense of community.

The best-selling books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam
Harris1 form the canon of the new atheism, but media in the form of magazines, Web
sites, blogs, online forums, and other books have also played an important role in driving
this social phenomenon. This is especially the case with new media; they have created new
forms of interaction and communication among secularists who may feel isolated in their
communities. In highlighting the role of media, we look at both the content and the medium.
An analysis of articles on atheism in two secularist magazines, coupled with an Internet
survey of self-identified atheists on the new atheism and their use of the media, allows us
to see how secularists themselves are interpreting and evaluating the new atheism. Medium
theory situates these interpretations and evaluations in a broader media context; conceiving
of such as ongoing effects resulting from the process of mediation that secularists themselves
go through in defining and understanding themselves as secularists. Examining the relation
Correspondence should be addressed to Richard Cimino, 2869 Lawrence Drive, Wantagh, NY 11793. E-mail:
Relwatch1@msn.com
1 Dawkins, The God Delusion (2007); Dennett, Breaking the Spell (2006); Harris, The End of Faith (2007); Hitchens,
God Is Not Great (2007).

24

THE NEW ATHEISM

25

between current technology and modern experience, medium theory enables us to look at what
is unique regarding secularism in strict relation to more general tendencies associated with our
current conditions of communication.

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

SECULARISM AND ATHEISM IN AMERICAN SOCIETY

To secularists, the phenomenon of the new atheism is hailed as a harbinger of advancing
secularism. Yet the status and role of atheism and secularism in American society are far more
complex than one of secularism displacing religion. The space for atheism in America has
been largely limited historically. Atheists have lacked the ready-made structures of history,
narrative, and tradition that would enable the easy passage from the periphery to the center
(Thoburn, 2003, p. 19). The practice of coming out as an atheist has not been simply a matter
of publicly claiming atheism along a well-worn, legitimate route. It has involved emerging from
invisibility to claim a personal and social identity that has carried a fair degree of stigma. This
stigma is likely weakening, since even before the emergence of the new atheism, there has
been a growth of organizations and activism among secularists attempting to make a place for
themselves in American society (Cimino & Smith, 2007).
Unlike Europe, where anti-clerical and Enlightenment thinkers and movements sought to
challenge religious establishments, the Enlightenment in the United States carried less animus
toward organized religion (Himmelfarb, 2004). As secular rationalism gained ascendancy in
many American institutions, especially universities, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
the expectation of a widespread secular revolution was widely shared by organized humanist
and atheist leaders and thinkers, as well as by scientists and educational leaders (Smith, 2003),
even if they were eventually disabused of the idea of inaugurating a secular century (Cimino
& Smith, 2007).
Organized secularism has had minimal impact in American society, both because of organizational instability as well as due to the social marginalization of atheists and other secularists.
This marginalization of nontheists was strong enough and their organizations were weak enough
for free-thinkers to often join forces with religious liberals in pressing for strict churchstate
separation as well as social reform, such as feminism and civil rights (Jacoby, 2004). The
stigma of atheism has been a fact of American history that continues up to the present day.
Recent research by Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann (2006) found high levels of public distrust
directed toward atheists, exceeding that experienced by homosexuals and Muslims in the United
States. These attitudes were derived more from widespread ideas of what makes for cultural
membership in America than from cases of prejudice between the religious and nonreligious.
The growth of atheist and other secularist organizations and activism in the 20th century is
often associated with their ambivalence about both extending secularist influence while providing a defense against persistent religious influence and perceived prejudice. One of the largest
and most well-organized secularist groups in the United States is secular humanism, which
developed from two strains: the atheist-freethought movement, and the religious humanism
which stemmed from Unitarianism and Universalism. In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was
issued largely by Unitarians, calling for a world community based on secular and liberal values.
The fledgling movement based around the manifesto was called religious humanism (Walter,
1998), but in the 1970s some humanist leaders adopted the use of the term secular humanist

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

26

CIMINO AND SMITH

to avoid misunderstanding. Most secular humanists today are based around the Council for
Secular Humanism and its institutional expression, known as Center for Inquiry (CFI).
Cimino and Smith (2007) examine the formation of these organizations and their activism as
strategies for survival and growth. Such strategizing stems from the secularists recognition that
secularism had failed to gain dominance in America and that, with the growth of religion and its
public expression (especially the Christian right), nontheism would have a marginal presence.
It was particularly in the adoption of the subcultural stance of evangelicals and drawing on
identity politics (i.e., coming out of the closet as an atheist) that organized secularists sought
to maintain their presence in society. While not focusing on the new atheism, Cimino and
Smith (2007) noted that this more recent triumphalist move by secularists was also marked by
greater conflict with and animus toward established religion.
Although it is unlikely that secularists were ever united in their strategies, a historical study
by Nabors (2009) examined how atheists by the 1980s significantly decreased their focus on
fighting for churchstate separation and have gradually stressed the role of argument and debate
in making the atheist case. Nabors argues that the decline of the denominational society, where
secular groups built coalitions with other religions in order to legally defend their interests
against a perceived dominant religious body (whether Protestant or Catholic), has given atheists
less political legitimacy. For this reason, atheism has attempted to regain this legitimacy by
associating itself with science and actively trying to discredit religious belief.
The sociology of media has just begun to address the issue of atheism. However, the past
and contemporary literature on the public sphere (Habermas, 1989; Calhoun, 1992; Fraser,
1992; Poster, 1996) and the role media play in its constitution reveals an affinity with the study
of minority and marginalized groups. Such groups perceive themselves to be excluded from
dominant publics, communicate about that exclusion, and construct oppositional discourses
through media, and the formation of counterpublics (Negt & Kluge, 1993; Fraser, 1992).
Taylor (Free Inquiry, December 2005/January 2006) examines how the Internet has created a
forum for interaction and discussion of specific problems atheists face in America. Similar use
of media for defense (Unsigned, 2008), entertainment (Adler, 2007), public relations (Lyall,
2009), and outreach (Simon, 2008) has been covered in various newspapers and magazines.
Academic articles on the new atheism have focused predominantly on the popular and
media response (Koch, 2008), or critiquing the new atheist authors (Amarasingam, 2010).
Such interpretive and critical studies offer significant insight regarding the actual content of the
books and the responses they have generated. They fail, however, to examine the context within
which the books, and all the commentary they have generated are formulated. In this case that
context is media broadly understood as the empirical-technical conditions of communication
that allow certain forms of social interaction and ways of being while discouraging others
(Innis, 1964; McLuhan, 1964; Meyrowitz, 1985, 1994, 2000). Instead of viewing technology
as a tool solely for sending information among subjects who stand outside the technological
apparatus, medium theorists are unique in arguing that technology and media should be seen as
constituting an environment or the material terrain on which social knowledge, and the social
world itself, are actively experienced and shaped. They are not necessarily saying that there
is no analytical distinction to be made between the human and the technological or between
reality and the representation of reality. Rather, they state that the subjects using language
and technology, the world represented through language and technology, and language and
technology themselves, are all part of the same world and reality.

THE NEW ATHEISM

27

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

METHOD
Examining both the content and medium allows us to address questions concerning how media
are reshaping relationships among atheists themselves as well as altering the symbolic boundaries between atheists and theists. Textual analysis and medium theory both offer insightful
approaches for studying atheism. Far from being incompatible, these two approaches can
actually strengthen each other. Rather than setting the content (meaning), or what secularists
represent and perceive, and the medium (means), or how secularists represent and perceive,
to opposing sides, a more productive approach is to have the assumptions, methodologies,
and the object of analysis of each approach work itself, so to speak, into the analysis of the
other (Carpignano, 1999, p. 178). The data from the publications and questionnaires, then,
are being worked on two fronts simultaneously. In the first instance, the data are used as a
representative, if admittedly small, sample of how secularists themselves understand and feel
about new atheism and contemporary secularism. In the second, we look at how a particular
media environment shapes secularists reflections and attitudes. To this end, we try to remain
alert to the ways secularists understand and represent themselves through the publications and
questionnaires while considering how the material conditions of mediation shapes such an
understanding and representation.
In looking at how the new atheist phenomenon has been interpreted and appropriated by
those involved in atheist and secular humanist organizations, we analyze articles on the new
atheism which have appeared in two of the most prominent free-thought publications, Free
Inquiry and the American Atheist, between January 2006 and March 2008the period when
the new atheism was at its peak in book sales and media attention. The textual analysis was
conducted by Richard Cimino. Free Inquiry is published by the Council on Secular Humanism,
the main organization of secular humanists. Secular humanists have sought to differentiate
themselves from atheists by arguing that a positive system of ethics and philosophy is an
essential component of nontheism. American Atheist is published by American Atheists, an
organization of approximately 2,000 members, founded by Madelyn Murray OHair in 1963.
Second, we analyze and discuss responses to an online questionnaire (containing both openended and closed questions) on the new atheism that both of us created and circulated among
secular humanist and atheist organizations. We requested that they provide a link to our survey
on their Web sites or send our questions to their e-mail lists of members and other participants
in their groups. Most of the 105 responses came from the New York metropolitan area, but
also from Chicago, Denver, Washington, DC, Austin, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tulsa, and
Oklahoma City. While our survey did not include demographic questions and may not be
representative of American atheists, it did illuminate the ways in which organized atheists
relate to the new atheism and also how the media environment shapes this relationship. The
respondents were asked 10 questions, including what nontheist self-designation they use; how
they view the status of secularism and religious belief in the United States; whether and to
what extent they use the Internet for atheist activities; whether their online activities led to
offline involvement in secularist organizations; their views of the new atheism; and the role of
public intellectuals and new atheist spokespersons in promoting atheism socially and politically.
The only criteria for selecting such respondents were that they self-identify as atheist and were
involved in the organized secularist movement. We use involved here as a very loose category
to capture those ranging from lone activists engaging in atheist protests to those who are active

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

28

CIMINO AND SMITH

members of atheist and secular humanist societies to more marginal participants who subscribe
to secularist publications.
We triangulated our data from the responses with the results of the textual analysis and
with previous ethnographic interviews we conducted with 37 atheists and secular humanists
from New York, Washington, DC, and Oklahoma between 2002 and 2005. The 37 interviewees
ranged in age from 20 and 80, and a quarter were women. All of the informants were White, and
the majority of those asked about their educational level had attended college. The interviews
covered secularists life histories, including their religious backgrounds and training (or lack
thereof), the events leading to their espousal of atheist and secular humanist teachings and
philosophy, and their involvement in the organized expressions of these movements.

FINDINGS: SECULAR HUMANISTS, ATHEISTS, AND

THE NEW ATHEISM
Textual Analysis
In the majority of articles in both Free Inquiry and the American Atheist, the new atheism was
viewed as a positive development demonstrating the relevance and persuasiveness of the atheist
message to American society. A significant minority of articles in both publications, however,
criticized the style and substance of the new atheism, either for being too radical or not radical
enough.
The publication of the new atheist books was followed by and commented upon most
frequently in Free Inquiry, not unusual considering the amount of space the magazine devotes
to debating the public image and strategies of freethinkers in general. Virtually all of the
new atheist authors contributed to Free Inquiry before their best-selling books were published.
Dawkins has been particularly active in the secular humanist movement, speaking and writing
against both religion and promoting atheist identity (i.e., consciousness-raising for freethinkers
by using the designation brights).
The new atheism was treated as an emerging phenomenon by atheists and secular humanists
only after Dawkins book The God Delusion had become a best-seller and linked by the media
with Harriss, Dennetts, and (later) Hitchenss books as the touchstones of the new atheism.
Since material in these books were extended versions of articles run by Free Inquiry since its
inception, the new atheist literature was treated by the magazine mainly as a way of popularizing
the atheist message as well as a means of legitimizing secularism in American society. The
tension between, on the one hand, spreading secularism and attempting to expose the fallacies
of belief and, on the other, seeking acceptance in a largely religious society runs through the
recent history of secular humanism and is evident in the treatment of the new atheism by
secular humanists.
On the whole, however, Free Inquiry appeared to be an enthusiastic booster of the new
atheists early on. Starting in 2007, the new atheists books were grouped together as a single
phenomenon and were seen to represent a new stage of secularist assertiveness. Norm Allen,
director of African Americans for Humanism, wrote that the new atheists are following in the
path of the abolitionists and other radicals throughout American history who have sought
to accelerate the agenda of moderates. Allen adds that moderates who believe in dialogue

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

THE NEW ATHEISM

29

with theists should not stand in the way of radicals such as Dawkins and Harris who are
taking atheism and naturalism to the masses in a way thats seldom been seen in this century
(Allen, 2007, p. 52). In the same issue, Christopher Hitchens (2007, July/August) defended the
new atheists against charges that they are espousing a new fundamentalism in their attacks on
religion. Hitchens wrote that such a time-wasting tactic devised by religious fundamentalists
may appeal to moderates who want to appear even-handed, but it is a diversion from the
argument against fundamentalism and theism.
Among the strongest affirmations of the new atheism in Free Inquiry was by editor Paul
Kurtz (2007, February/March, p. 5), who noted that the magazine was gratified that several
of its writers and their views were finding a wider audience, though he criticized the medias
use of the term evangelical atheism to describe the phenomenon. Kurtz strongly refused to
concede to the media criticism that the new atheist authors were unfairly attacking religion and
religious people, adding that such authors were paying the price for breaking the long-standing
American taboo of not critically examining religion and calling into question the existence of
God. Kurtz added that the war against secularism by the religious right is unremitting; why
should the non-religious, nonaffiliated, secular minority of the country remain silent?
Alongside the support for the new atheism existed some wariness about the consequences of
the unrelenting attack on religion. In a later editorial, Kurtz himself sounded a cautionary note,
restating his long-time concern that secular humanists not be known as nabobs of negativity,
defined by the beliefs they oppose rather than for their positive system of ethics and philosophy
(Kurtz, 2007). The sharpest critique of the new atheism, however, was written by a British
contributor in a symposium on the future of secularism in post-Christian Europe. Philosopher
Julian Baggini (2007, pp. 4243) wrote that the shock-and-awe tactics of Dawkins and
Dennett are bound to fail, producing a polarization that could radicalize believers even more.
Secularists have also misjudged the mood of the people they have purportedly liberated. People
who once lived under the yoke of oppressive religion now have the freedom to believe, read,
and do what they want. So why have the ungrateful bastards not become full-fledged atheists?
The answer from some quarters seems to be that not all have got the message, so what they
need is some reeducation in the folly of religion and the joys of science, Baggini wrote. He
added that the new atheist strategy of blaming religion for most of the worlds ills just isnt
credible. Images of murderous inquisitors just dont square with the English impression of
tea with kindly vicars and genteel carol services at Christmas. In summary, we are wrong to
respond to the rise of religion by squaring off for the big fight. To protect secularism we need
to win the hearts and the minds of the moderate majority (Baggini, 2007, p. 43).
One might expect that self-designated atheists would be far more supportive of the new
atheism than secular humanists, who view atheism as only part of their identity. An analysis of
the American Atheist, however, suggests a similar level of support, but more ambivalence than
found in Free Inquiry. There was less frequent citation of new atheist books in the American
Atheist, most likely due to the fact that its authors are outside of the network of activists
and writers that make up its parent organization, American Atheists. It could also be that the
oppositional position of the new atheists was assumed in the American Atheist and there was
an attempt to feature more diverse voices on the phenomenon.
The more activist thrust of American Atheists and its magazine tended to color the coverage
of the new atheism in a political direction. In a 2008 editorial, American Atheists President
Ellen Johnson cited the popularity of the new atheist books (and her own media appearances)

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

30

CIMINO AND SMITH

as helping to educate and mobilize nonreligious voters to the polls to press for their own rights.
One article cited the usefulness of new atheist books in activism and recruitment for the cause,
although the writer doubted that religious people will be exposed to such arguments even if
they are authored by big names atheists. Rather, what is needed is for ordinary atheists to
come out of the closet and directly confront religious truth claims in their local media (Bice,
2007).
In a strongly positive review of Hitchenss God Is Not Great, one article states that each
of the new atheists books can serve specific purposes: I like to visualize a pair of goodcop; bad-cop teams of interlocutors going forth to do battle with believers of all stripes. I
would send Christopher Hitchens along with good cop Daniel Dennett to do battle with the
theologians and apologists : : : (Guardia, 2008, p. 30). Even the favorable articles criticized
the new atheists on a number of points, such as their tendency to target the Judeo-Christian
God while ignoring the deities of other religions. An article by Indian rationalist author Meera
Nanda (2008, p. 22) focuses on Harriss espousal of some aspects of Eastern spirituality (even
as he attacks the monotheistic religions, especially Islam). Nanda charges that in his book
The End of Faith, Harris loads spiritual practices with metaphysical baggage, all the while
claiming to stand up for reason and evidence. By the end of the book, I could not help thinking
of him as a Trojan horse for the New Age: : : : It is hard to believe that the author of this stuff
is the most celebrated rationalist of our troubled times. (The uneasiness and questions about
Harriss secular spirituality was also evident in Free Inquiry [see Hoffmann, 2006].)
A 2008 cover story entitled Is Dawkins Deluded? was more critical of the doyen of
atheism than most articles found in Free Inquiry. While agreeing with Dawkins more than the
provocative headline might indicate, Massimo Pigliucci (2008) asserted that the God Delusions
equating child abuse with early religious education was downright pernicious, a charge that
could be turned against Unitarians and even some nontheist groups while ignoring the critical
thinking encouraged in some religious traditions.
Survey and Interview Analysis
The respondents to our questionnaire clearly echoed the above articles in affirming the new
atheism and the way it legitimized and affirmed their identities as secularists. It should be noted
that only a small minority of the respondents were familiar, let alone identified, with the new
atheism as a specific movement. Rather, the identification was with the new atheist authors
and their best-selling books and how they reached a mainstream readership and thus helped
create for them new public acceptance and engagement with the cause of atheism. Almost
all respondents had read at least one of the new atheist books, and as one person replied,
they provided a greater sense of acceptance or support in society. The sense of acceptance
they reported was also related to the belief that the new atheism was helping to dispel forms
of belief that were especially intolerant toward atheists. One respondent wrote that he was
glad about the new acceptance, adding that I think many people are tired of the bullying
by the Religious Right. Others felt that this sense of greater security may be short-lived. As
one respondent wrote: I expect a stronger pushback if [these books] become more popular
(I am in Oklahoma!) The only respondent who felt no such sense of acceptance wrote that
Individuals who base their life on : : : mythology are unable to confront reality. Actually, for
such individuals with immature minds, the more vocal and public we are, the more threatened

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

THE NEW ATHEISM

31

they feel, and act. More than half of respondents believed that atheists are still discriminated
against, although few could cite incidents where they personally felt such prejudice.
Of interest, even though the media have portrayed these books and the movie as divisive
and negative toward religious believers, more than 50% of respondents tended to believe that
theists who read them would have a more positive view of atheists and atheism. Some did
wonder how many religious people would actually read such books and if they might be
offensive to their friends and relatives. The contentious and critical nature of the new atheism
was more often one of its major draws, regardless of whether theists, society, or the media
approved of it. As one respondent commented: We have been too nice to the religious for
decades and it has gotten us nowhere : : : a plain no-nonsensical statement of our views is long
overdue. Dawkins, Hitchens are my heroes where this is concerned. While the media were
praised for introducing new atheist views, respondents also noted that atheism still faces media
discrimination and oversight. Atheism has always been cast in the lowest regard by the media
and most everyone in America. I tend to be more outspoken now [after the new atheist books]
than ever before. I now refuse to just nod my head to religious conversations and say nothing
to irritate those conversing, one respondent wrote.
A generally negative view of the mainstream media stood in contrast to the support and
affirmation the respondents found on the Internet (24 of the 34 respondents who answered the
question about the mainstream media showed such negative views). The substantial transformations in our contemporary media-scape are creating a new space for atheists to come out,
speak out, and meet up in a still largely religious society. The responses to the questionnaires
seem to go some way toward confirming this. Since our sample came from the contact lists
of secular humanist and other secularist groups, it was not surprising that the majority of
respondents were active in organized secularist groups. Among the active respondents (which
could mean attending an occasional meeting or meet-up with other atheists), Internet activity
often supplemented their offline involvement. There was also a degree of movement between
exclusive Internet activity and contact and offline involvement in secularist groups and activism
(about 20% of the sample). However, a significant minority (approximately 40%) reported only
online involvement, usually in the form of visiting favorite Web sites and interacting with other
atheists in forums and by e-mail. A Colorado atheist man who moved from Internet involvement
to offline activity said, The great thing about the Internet is that if you want to come out you
can, and if you want to get a message out but dont want to be known to the world you can
do so anonymously as well. I think that is a great start for people who are reluctant to come
out officially.
The weak ties that comprise the secularist community in the United States allowed discussion
and interaction on the new atheism, creating an atmosphere encouraging nontheists to be more
outspoken and involved in group activity with like-minded freethinkers. Such interactions led to
more optimistic attitudes about the progress of secularism in American society and the decline
of the influence of religion. More than half of the respondents agreed that secularism was
growing and religion fading, although an element of conflict was evident in these accounts. A
respondent said that atheism/secularism is very slowly gaining acceptance as people become
disenchanted with the [religious right] attempting to legislate their beliefs into laws. Blue
laws are rarely enforced and fewer are attempted to become legislated. Anti-abortionist groups
are increasingly being marginalized as wacky and their zeal is losing sympathy from outsiders
who were on the sidelines. This greater optimism stands in contrast to our earlier ethnographic

32

CIMINO AND SMITH

interviews where there was marked pessimism about the state of secularism in society. This
change, which is also evident in the pages of Free Inquiry and American Atheist, may also be
related to the new Democratic administration and the perceived losses to the Christian right
with this political transition.

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

DISCUSSION: THE MEDIUM IS THE NEW ATHEIST MESSAGE

We find that the new atheist literature has effectively enhanced atheisms profile. Previously,
interest in atheism was largely expressed out of public view and within specialized academic,
theological, and legal circles. The new atheist books have generated an impressive amount of
commentary in the form of articles, blog/forum posts, podcasts, news stories, academic debates,
and even anti-new atheist sermons. In addition, many evangelical laity and clergy have read
and responded to these books (McGrath, 2004; Garrison, 2008; Mohler, 2008; Aikman, 2008;
Marshall, 2007; Kijeski, 2008; Hedges, 2008). One might even say that atheism is popular
today (as a consequence of the whole notion of popular being reconfigured along niche lines
and niche markets). Not only have numerous books by openly avowed atheists made best-seller
lists for the first time in U.S. history, but there also have been popular films and TV shows
with firm and explicit anti-religious sympathies and sentiments, such as Religulous and Family
Guy. To some extent, it is the greater visibility and accessibility of atheism that threatens the
norm of American religiosity and affirms secularists beliefs.
Such visibility both expresses and broadens the scope of participation for American secularists. This is especially important for secularists, since their public image has more often been
constructed by others. This visibility and agency is inseparable from new forms of experience
and publicity arising from the expansion of the communicative conditions of contemporary
media. However, tensions remain among secularists regarding the best way to speak out and
promote the cause, namely between moderates who favor a notion of publicity premised more
on formal conditions of communication (deliberation, polite argument) and those who favor
less formal and more personal notions of publicity premised more on their own experience
and everyday lives. It is against this backdrop that we can also note a shift from a more
institutional secularism focused on legal proceedings and building coalitions with religious
organizations to a more cultural secularism stressing the role of argument and debate, trying
to discredit religious belief and advocate for change on more personal and individual terms,
outside the channels created for this purpose by the dominant secular organizations.
The new sense of acceptance and the expansion of atheist discourse and experience leads
to new tensions as secularists realize that religious adherence continues alongside their own
new forms of publicity. Drawing on Marshall McLuhans global village metaphor, Joshua
Meyrowitz, observes:
As the membranes around spatially segregated arenas [have] become more informationally permeable, through television and other electronic media, the current trend is toward integration of all
groups into a relatively common experiential spherewith a new recognition of the special needs
and idiosyncrasies of individuals. (Meyrowitz, 1993, p. 43, emphasis added)

Experience is deterritorialized. Cut off from a particular place, tradition, or group, the
boundaries of those whom we perceive and experience as significant are radically redefined

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

THE NEW ATHEISM

33

by media. Granting individuals and groups once firmly separated (by geography as well as
social status and roles) access to the same experiential space is one of the principal agents for
increasing awareness of physical, social, and legal segregation (Meyrowitz, 1993, p. 43).
This notion that situational and informational integration heightens the perception of segregation is consistent with what we found in our earlier research, where most participants in
secular and atheist groups made the transition from being an inactive or nominal secular
individual to becoming involved in secular humanist groups and activism through contact and
growing concern with individuals and issues associated with the religious right. As one New
York educator we interviewed put it:
I didnt know much about the religious right until I had to work with them. I started seeing what
they were about and became very frightened at the rhetoric. I realized the Board of Education in
New York is permeated with born-again Christians : : : [And] I was harassed on the job when [they
found out I was an atheist]. I always knew I was an atheist but never saw the need to talk about
it until I saw how [these] people were threatening freedom.

This growing concern, coupled with an increased desire to act, is also consistent with what
we found in the responses to our questionnaire. One respondent, for example, stated that he
started donating more money to humanist organizations after seeing clips of the film Jesus
Camp & the CNN TV series, Gods Warriors.
In this context, the formation of an atheist consciousness can be seen as a consequence of
atheists heightened awareness of the increasing distance between their strongly held views and
the views of the majority,2 which is a product of diminishing distance due to increasing access
to the same experiential sphere. In this case, the initially limited conflict of an atheist harassed at
work after coming out is generalized on the basis of the expansion of communicative networks
until it becomes a common matter, turning private matters into public issues. Consciousnessraising from this perspective would not be limited to a set of assumptions derived from life
experiences that are used to confront, challenge, or resist, from the outside, the dominant
ideology of theism but could also be conceived as a product of an electronically defined
common place that, by virtue of being electronically reproduced, can be considered a public
space (Carpignano, Andersen, Aronowitz, & DiFazio, 1993, pp. 113114).
We can now see how secularists feeling a greater sense of acceptance and exclusion both
emerge from the same dynamics. The new atheist texts, which are written for a popular
audience, provide its advocates with an open-ended project with which to identify, creating a
shared vision. They also allow secularists to imagine themselves as part of a community (with
no sense of place in particular) even though they will likely never meet many, if any, of their
fellow secularists (Anderson, 1991). This sense of reading with like-minded strangers gives
2 The majority/minority distinction in this case having less to do with sheer numbers than with the fact that theism
arguably remains the normative standard in comparison to which nontheism can be said to be minority in the United
States. Although America, as Peter Berger is quick to point out, is less religious than it seems because it has a
cultural elite which is heavily secularized (Mathewes, 2006, p. 155). Of course, these same cultural elites would appear
more often than not to find publicly professing to a belief in God to be advantageous, at least in the political sphere.
This is not as surprising as it might initially seem, perhaps, when one considers that secularism and Enlightenment
thought came to the United States supported by religion rather than at its expense (Casanova, 2006; Himmelfarb,
2004).

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

34

CIMINO AND SMITH

secularists a greater sense of acceptance. At the same time, their sense of being a minority
is intensified. Prior to the electronic age it was possible for secularists to read popular and
scholarly works proclaiming the inevitable demise of religion and believe that the secularization
of societyto the extent it was causally linked to modernizationwas merely a matter of time.
In contrast, today secularists of all ages see American religiosity sprawled across billboards
and proudly displayed in many televised political and sporting events, to say nothing of the
religiosity of the rest of the world that is transmitted into their homes on nightly news programs.
Moreover, widely publicized opinion polls and research continue to confirm for secularists the
fact that the United Statesalthough in practice and theory a secular stateis made up of a
population in which a significant majority not only considers belief in the supernatural normal
and evolution false, but want creationism taught alongside evolution in school.
This simultaneous sense of acceptance and exclusion helps explain why, on the one hand,
most questionnaire respondents felt that prejudice against atheists exists in American society
and, on the other, also reported having raised expectations for the future of secularism. Thus
although secularism is no longer taken for granted as inevitable among secularists (Cimino &
Smith, 2007), it still functions as a goal at once partially realized yet not fully arrived, which
compels secularists to both press for legal protection of their rights as well as extend their
influence through activism. Also, secularism, conceptualized as the progress of humanity in
terms of advances in science, knowledge, law, and so forth, and an ever-decreasing (and ever
more private) role for religion also function as a grand narrative of emancipation (Lyotard,
1984) among secularists ideologically. Although secularists tend to exaggerate the relationship
between secularism and science and claim rationality and science for themselves in an attempt to
exclude the excluders, the dispersal of discourses makes it harder for any particular discourse,
such as a scientific discourse, to claim any a priori primacy. In this respect, the very same
conditions that allows the articulation and mass publicizing of an atheistic discourse grounded
in science weakens its potential power of claiming the authority of science to the extent that
the line between science and nonscience becomes blurred informationally. This blurring, or
de-differentiation, is apparent in many phenomena today: from self-help literature that draws
on science unscientifically to the promotion of creationism, or intelligent design, as being as
scientifically valid as evolution.
This proliferation of discourses accompanying de-differentiation is related, at least in part,
to the expansion of many-to-many communicative networks. Such networks have created a
disposition toward personal presentation that makes the existence of institutions based on
representation, such as the mainstream press, more problematic. Todays secularists are not
content to merely be represented or reading with one another; they also desire to present
themselves to the public. This disposition toward self-exhibition is intensified with secularists
appearing to themselves in a place in common (cyberspace), a place that consists not so much
in discrete images and bits of information but also as the source of presentation itself insofar
as being public today increasingly means being online. Part of the Internets power and appeal
for secularists when compared to the mainstream press is that it encourages forms of personal
presentation and mobilizes them to action
in public, as themselves, unscripted and unrehearsed, as writers of their own texts and producers
of their own public pronouncements and utterances: : : : Informal, emotional, gossipy, trivial,
entertaining as they may be (and they are), these discursive practices represent an unprecedented

THE NEW ATHEISM

35

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

intrusion of [secularists] into the discursive apparatus of the media. And this intrusion accounts,
to a great degree, for the very visible shift in the direction of the private, the intimate, in public
debate. (Carpignano, 1999, p. 187)

This unprecedented intrusion of atheists coming out on a scale and in a manner heretofore
unseen as writers of their own texts and producers of their own public pronouncements brings
conflicting attitudes regarding the new atheism and the proper way to promote the secular cause
to the fore. With some feeling that the new atheists are too openly hostile to religion and others
feeling that a total critique of religion is long overdue, a dichotomy that not only ran through
the content of Free Inquiry and, to a lesser extent, the American Atheist but was also apparent
in the responses to the questionnaire. I think such nasty attitudes are self-defeating, said one
respondent. Achieving atheism is a matter that requires much thought, with as little extraneous
noise as possible. In contrast, another stated: I refuse to distinguish myself from the New
Atheism. Religion : : : deserves to be harshly criticized.
Ironically, it is in part because of the increased visibility due to the success of the books,
and atheists subsequent intensity that some secularists now find themselves on the defensive.
Greg Epstein (2009), for example, has used the publicity generated around the new atheists to
promote humanismor the New Humanism as he calls itas a positive alternative to atheism
that seeks to go beyond non-antagonism [and] to actually build coalitions with religious
people of all stripes around important issues. Similarly, Paul Kurtz has used the opportunity
to reiterate the distinction between secular humanism and new atheism, stating that for the
secular humanist, it is not so much the stridency of these books that is at issue, as it is
whats missing from these books.3 Epstein and Kurtz believe that what is missing from this
uncompromising critique of religion is the affirmation of ethical values, humanistic virtues,
and democratic principles. A similar sentiment was conveyed by one of the respondents: I
do think that advocating an anti position is a disadvantage. I prefer that we speak of what we
value in positive terms: reason, scientific inquiry, separation of church and state. I do not want
to be seen as a nihilist.
The problem for the more mainstream and moderate secularists, such as Kurtz and Epstein,
is a fear that some of the more publicly outspoken secularists (the new atheists being the
most popular and publicly prominent example) are offering the general public a partial and
distorted image of secularism, a concern that has increased with the heterogeneity of secularist
voices and perspectives coming out online. Moderates see little advantage to the cacophony
of voices and perspectives, some arguing that such activity is doing more harm than good and
actually increases misunderstanding.
At the other end of the spectrum are militant atheists, such as PZ Myers, who promote
and valorize the virtues of a highly personalized and aggressive mode of atheism set against
the perceived deficiencies of a more moderate, or accommodating atheism. These different
views regarding the best approaches to speaking out and consciousness-raising echoes the
long-standing, if renewed and now more public, division between those secularists content to
3 This quote is from the press release for Kurtzs paper What Is Secular Humanism? retrieved from http://www.
secularhumanism.org/index.php?sectionDpress&pageDpr_pos_paper. The ousting of Kurtz as chairman of CFI in the
summer of 2009 has been reported as signaling a changing of the guard in the organization toward a more aggressive
atheist position. See Button (2010).

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

36

CIMINO AND SMITH

attack religion and secular humanists concerned with promoting a positive system of secular
ethics. While the moderate critics are right to be worried given the problem of controlling
image in a hyper-mediated age, the idea that the representation of secularists and secularism
is more distorted today than in the past should be questioned. In fact, to the extent more
secularists than ever are going public as themselves and seeking change on their own personal
terms, we might actually argue that the image of secularists and secularism today is much less
partial and distorted, or less distorted precisely due to its partiality.
Thus one should be cautious about drawing the conclusion that the new atheist phenomenon
is having a negative impact. Publics open to internal antagonism are publics that are active,
not fractured. Moreover, this diversity could potentially be advantageous pragmatically and
strategically. As a respondent to our survey complained: I wish people would stop fostering
the perception that secularists are [seriously at] odds with each other over semantics and
approaches : : : Sure, secularists have different approaches to furthering the same causes, but
the different approaches seem to be effective under different circumstances. It seems that
Epstein and the new atheists appreciate each others work despite any disagreements.
Yet the tension between different secularists and secular groups often is more than a matter
of mere semantics and having different approaches. While also questioning the designation of
atheism as a social movement, one atheist writer notes that:
[A]theism is not itself an ideology; there is no such thing as an atheist mindset or an atheist
movement. Atheism per se hasnt inspired and doesnt lead to anything in particular because it
is an effectnot a causeand there are countless reasons for a person to not believe in God,
ranging from vicious to innocent to noble. The newborn baby lacks a belief in God, as does the
Postmodern Nihilist, the Communist, and the Objectivistbut each for entirely different reasons
having dramatically different implications. So lumping all of these together under the atheist label
as if that were a meaningful connection is profoundly confused. Yet this is exactly what the New
Atheists do and encourage: they talk about how there are so many atheists out there, and advocate
their banding together into an atheist community to seek fellowship, foster cultural change, build
a political voice, and so on. (Perkins, 2008)

Although the passage makes things a little too neat regarding the question of whether atheism
does or does not constitute a social movement, it makes the point that secularism, as a pluralistic,
highly individualized public with multiple minor publics, made up of individuals holding
diverse, if not incompatible, philosophies and political stances does not constitute a social
movement as typically understood. One reason for this is that much of these secularist publics
are made up of unaffiliated individuals. Another reason for this is the dispersed and weak-tie
nature of such publics. There is no collective manifesto that unites all secularists, nor any
intellectual vanguard that claims to speak on behalf of all secularists today. The common link
among secularists is a minimal no to theism and an affirmative yes to reason and science,
which may be a severe limitation to building strong-tie communities, a unified political front,
or a movement fitted with actors all struggling for the same goals. That may nonetheless turn
out to be beneficial in other ways, specifically with regard to the wider and more rapid spread
of information due to an institutional lightness, the lack of a strong collective identity, and
a lowered threshold of commitment among participants (Granovetter, 1973), participants that
collectively, if unintentionally, affirm an emergent movement that is informationally greater
than the sum of its parts.

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

THE NEW ATHEISM

37

The circulation of atheist ideas and ideologies has increased exponentially. Greater visibility
has opened up the opportunity for secularists whose politics, philosophies, life experiences,
and social statuses differ widely to acknowledge one another and socialize solely on the basis
of the one attribute they all have in common. The new atheist books are a distinctive and
important part of this phenomenon. Although the books have been critiqued quite heavily
among scholars and experts, what such critics miss is the function they serve and the role
they play: taken collectively the books represent a vernacular in which a wildly diverse and
potentially global (some of the books have been widely translated) population of secularists
may invent and imagine their identities, narratives, and traditions. Even if the charges of the
new atheism being mean-spirited, militant, aggressive, and even counter-productive ring true for
those outside the secularist fold, it is also the case that what is conceived as a confrontational
device becomes an opening for the empowerment of an alternative discursive practice. These
[unabashedly anti-religious discourses] dont have to conform to civility nor to the dictates of
the general interest. They can be expressed for what they are: particular, regional, one-sided,
and for that reason politically alive (Carpignano et al., 1993, p. 116).

REFERENCES
Adler, J. (2007, January 8). Blasphemy. Newsweek, p. 10.
Aikman, D. (2008). The delusion of disbelief. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.
Allen, N. (2007, June/July). In defense of radicalism. Free Inquiry, 52.
Amarasingam, A. (Ed.). (2010, forthcoming). The new atheism. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York, NY:
Verso.
Baggini, J. (2007, February/March). Toward a more mannerly secularism. Free Inquiry, 4144.
Bice, J. (2007, August). Taking atheism out of the closet. American Atheist, 2123.
Bullivant, S. (2008). Richard Dawkins on being a Christian. Theology, 111(864), 420426.
Button, T. (2010, Winter). The fighting atheists. Religion in the News, p. 11.
Calhoun, C. (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carpignano, P. (1999). The shape of the sphere: The public sphere and the materiality of communication. Constellations,
6, 177189.
Carpignano, P., Andersen, R., Aronowitz, S., & DiFazio, W. (1993). Chatter in the age of electronic reproduction: Talk
television and the public mind. In B. Robbins (Ed.), The phantom public sphere (pp. 93120). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Casanova, J. (2006). Secularism revisited: A reply to Talal Asad. In D. Scott & C. Hirschkind (Eds.), Powers of the
secular modern: Talal Asad and his interlocutors (pp. 1230). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cimino, R., & Smith, C. (2007, Winter). Secular humanism and atheism beyond progressive secularism. Sociology of
Religion, 407424.
Dawkins, R. (2007, December 7). Science and the new atheism. Point of Inquiry Podcast. Retrieved from http://www.
pointofinquiry.org/richard_dawkins_science_and_the_new_atheism
Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as Other: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in
American society. American Sociological Review, 71, 674687.
Epstein, G. (2009). Why the new humanism. The New Humanism. Retrieved from http://www.thenewhumanism.org/
authors/greg-epstein/articles/why-the-new-humanism
Flynn, T. (2007, April/May). Tour de force. Free Inquiry, 5758.
Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actual existing democracy. In C.
Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Garrison, B. (2008). The new atheist crusaders and their unholy grail. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 13601380.
Guardia, G. (2008, September). God is not great. American Atheist, 2930.

Downloaded by [BYU Brigham Young University] at 08:01 07 November 2014

38

CIMINO AND SMITH

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois
society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hedges, C. (2008). I dont believe in atheists. New York, NY: Free Press.
Himmelfarb, G. (2004). The roads to modernity. New York, NY: Knopf.
Hitchens, C. (2007, July/August). Bullshitting about atheism. Free Inquiry, 2425.
Hitchens, C. (2007, July 6). God is not great. Point of Inquiry Podcast. Retrieved from http://www.pointofinquiry.org/
christopher_hitchens_god_is_not_great/
Hoffmann, R. J. (2006, October/November). Spiritual libertarians. Free Inquiry, 2527.
Hoffmann, R. J. (2007, December/January). Subject the sacred to scrutiny. Free Inquiry, 6263.
Innis, H. (1964). The bias of communication. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Johnson, E. (2008, January). Enlighten the vote. American Atheist, 4.
Jacoby, S. (2004). Freethinkers. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
Kijeski, T. (2008, October). Four gospels of atheism: An inquiry into anti-religious polemics and their effects on
Christian belief and practice. Unpublished paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion, Louisville, Kentucky.
Koch, G. (2008). Full of sound and fury: The media response to Dennett. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion,
20(1), 3644.
Kurtz, P. (2007, February/March). Are Evangelical atheists too outspoken? Free Inquiry, 45.
Kurtz, P. (2007, April/May). Yes to naturalism, secularism, and humanism. Free Inquiry, 45.
Kurtz, P. (2007, September 14). The new atheism and secular humanism. Point of Inquiry Podcast. Retrieved from
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/paul_kurtz_the_new_atheism_and_secular_humanism/
Layton, D. (2007, June/July). A fresh look at atheism and the Enlightenment. Free Inquiry, 6465.
Lyall, S. (2009, January 7). Atheists decide to send their own message, on 800 buses. New York Times, p. 6.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Marshall, D. (2007). The truth behind the new atheism. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.
Mathewes, C. T. (2006). An interview with Peter Berger. The Hedgehog Review, 152161.
McGrath, A. (2004). The twilight of atheism. New York, NY: Doubleday.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. London, England: Routledge.
Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on social behavior. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Meyrowitz, J. & Maguire, J. (1993). Media, place, and multiculturalism. Society, 4148.
Meyrowitz, J. (1994). Medium theory. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Communication theory today (pp. 5077).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Meyrowitz, J. (2000). Multiple media literacies. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (pp. 425438).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mohler, R. A. (2008). Atheism remix. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Nabors, B. (2009). The changing forms of organized nonbelief: The case of the Pacific City atheists. Unpublished
paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, San Francisco, CA.
Nanda, M. (2008, February). Trading faith for spirituality. American Atheist, 2025.
Negt, O., & Kluge, A. (1993). Public sphere and experience: Toward an analysis of the bourgeois and proletarian
public sphere. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Perkins, G. (2008). Why the new atheists cant even beat DSouza: The best and worst in human history. Diana Hsieh: NoodleFood. Retrieved from http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/why-new-atheists-cant-even-beatdsouza.shtml?nc
Pigliucci, M. (2008, May/June). Is Dawkins deluded? American Atheist, 1618.
Pollitt, K. (2008, December/January). Onward secular soldiers. Free Inquiry, 2021.
Poster, M. (1996). Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. In D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (pp. 201217).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Simon, S. (2008, November 18). Atheists reach outjust dont call it proselytizing. Wall Street Journal, p. A14.
Smith, C. (Ed.). (2003). The secular revolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sosis, R. (2007, December/January). Breaking the wrong spell. Free Inquiry, 5960.
Taylor, K. (2006, December/January). Atheists in cyberspace. Free Inquiry, 5152.
Thoburn, N. (2003). Deleuze, Marx and politics. London, England: Routledge.
Unsigned. (2006, August/September). Dawkins, Dennett, and Haack win Forkosch awards. Free Inquiry, 9.
Unsigned. (2008). Rejection of atheists group at Laurier sparks Internet outrage. Waterloo News, p. 4A.
Walter, N. (1998). Humanism. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.