My Problem with New Age Atheism

Unless you have been living under a rock or deliberately ignoring the world around you, it would be very difficult or even near impossible to not notice that more and more people are openly professing atheism. Whether or not they truly do not believe in a God is up for debate but their profession of Atheism should still be noted and respected.

My problem with a lot of these Atheists is their approach towards other religions. Most people will agree with the right of everyone to hold any religious belief their heart desires. And the fact that it is wrong to force your beliefs on anyone. But a lot of these new Atheists seem to be doing the contrary to the above, either by commission or omission. They constant torrent of insults being rained on religious people is quite frankly despicable. Books like “The God Delusion” and “God is not Great” , which have done a lot to reignite the much needed public debate on faith, have also gone a long way to fuel the flame of intolerance.

Of course there should always be a public debate about issues of faith but I strongly believe it is no longer a debate when one side has no interest in what the other has to say. I have listened to many public debates between theists and atheists and I can't help but notice a distinct disrespect and disregard from the atheist side. I do think a lot of religious people and thinkers have gotten complacent over the years and have developed a false sense of security. But I don't think a constant barrage of insult/ ridicule is what we need in the interest of intelligent discuss.

There is also a patronising element to the movement that I think belittles the intelligence of many of the people the movement is trying to reach. I get this “this is how you are meant to think” message that somehow suggests that human beings do not have the capacity to make an informed decision after evaluating the information available to them. It is one thing to disagree with someone and/or think they have made a wrong decision but it is something else entirely to suggest that your option is the only option. Theists can also be just as guilty of this.

My biggest problem with New Age Atheism is its militant nature. The way the movement's primary purpose seems to be to undermine and discredit everything else causes me great concern. I am perfectly comfortable with anyone who chooses to believe in something totally different to what I believe or even to be apathetic. As long as we both know that is where we are both coming from and deal with the situation as civilised adults rather than primitive narrow-minded ones. .

I am a strong believer in the fact when you feel like you need to pull someone else down to stand, you might need to question how sure your footing is. And this is why I think the militant nature of New Age Atheism is due to the their insecurities. I wouldn't worry about it too much though. I would be more worried about doing what I can to ascertain my faith and make sure I am secure in what I believe.

"Slang is the poetry of the poor"

When actress Emma Thompson said the words above a few weeks ago, it sparked heated discussions amongst linguists and lay men about the use of slang in everyday speech. To paraphrase the words of the actress, the use of slang makes you sound stupid and shows how much you don’t know. I think she is very wrong and is probably the one that doesn’t know a lot.

The use of slang is not always a result of ignorance but for many people, it is a very conscious choice in their journey of self expression. Their diction is not something they fall victim of as a result of substandard education or lack of exposure but a decision they have made after a careful consideration of the words and expressions available as well as a good think about how best to share their thoughts with the world.

And Thompson is not alone in her condemnation of the use of slang. There is often a derisive look on people’s faces when they hear speech heavily laced with slang. It comes across as if the speaker is somehow disadvantaged purely for their use of slang and I think this is very harsh and unnecessarily so. To lump those who choose after careful consideration in the same box as those who have the decision made for them is very harsh and could also be a pointer to what you don’t know.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not for one second condoning those who speak purely in slang due to a poor grasp of the language and those who do so out of ignorance. For those people, their only hope is to record themselves and a three year old and try make out which one of the two has the higher IQ.

In my opinion, slang should be a supplement to a language you already have a very strong command of. I don’t believe lacing whatever language you speak with colloquialisms makes you look stupid or cheapens the language. But rather, I believe a good selection of slang and appropriate use is a wonder to the human ear. Even the most proper of speakers will reveal some sort of influence of the pop culture to which they subscribe and that is what slang is. Slang has always been and will always be a huge part of how we speak. And a careful look at the history of some of the words we use loosely today will show their roots in colloquialism.

In closing, I will borrow the words of Max Davidson of The Telegraph who, in my opinion, summed up the whole discussion in the best way possible. According to him, “Slang alone will never be enough. You need to use a mixture of slang and non-slang expressions if you want to get your message across. But unless you see slang as a potential friend, a chance to be yourself, at ease with your peers, you will just end up as a well-spoken automaton – every sentence you utter immaculate, and not a breath of life in any of them.” You get me?