Jeff Nall and Fundamentalist Atheism

In his article, Fundamentalist Atheism and its Intellectual Failures, Jeff Nall (2008: 264) proposes a new breed of atheism called “fundamentalist atheism.” Fundamentalist atheism seeks to obliterate religion from modern society as it perceives religion as a major threat to civilisation. In this sense, atheism has become a social movement. It can therefore no longer be simply defined as a "non-belief in God" (Nall 2008: 265). Nall (2008: 264) goes on to say that this type of atheism is fuelled by the rise of secularism, or the separation of church and state.

Fundamentalist atheism narrowly defines and stereotypes religion to bolster its claim that religion is a violent threat to civilisation (Nall 2008: 264). As fundamental atheist, Christopher Hitchens (2008: 19), contends "as well as a menace to civilization, [religion] has become a threat to human survival.”  This form of atheism consequently defines religion as anti-science, a motivator of violence and adverse to progress. It sees religion as the principal impetus for violence in the world and the root of human evil. So, the only way to establish peace in the world, according to fundamentalist atheism, is to obliterate religion altogether.

This definition is based on a limited number of believers, being religious extremists or fundamentalists, who fit this stereotypical model. It therefore uses broad generalisations to condemn all religious adherents. For instance, some fundamental atheists claim that “Christianity is predisposed to foment violence and tolerance” (Nall 2008: 268). This statement is extremely incoherent however. Not all Christians are violent and intolerant. While there is a select percentage of the Christian population who do demand that the world conform to their ideals and promote religious violence, it is absurd to place this stereotype on every single adherent of this religion.

Additionally, these fundamentalist atheists see no difference between religious groups, sects within religions or among individual adherents of these religions. To them, a religious person is inherently violent and irrational no matter their personal beliefs or the extent of their religious beliefs. Instead, all religious paths are thought to lead to extremism. Apparently, there is no religious moderation. They believe that all religious people choose biblical literalism and extremism over critical and rational thought (Nall 2008: 269). This is simply not true. A plethora of beliefs and disbeliefs exist within each religious group.

This fundamentalist atheist viewpoint is somewhat hypocritical. As Nall (2008: 266) highlights in his article, “some fundamentalist atheists have called for actual war on Islam, or more specifically, for an attack on Iran.” Additionally, in 2007, Hitchens recommended a carpet bombing of Muslims alongside other violent recommendations (Nall 2008: 276). These proposals were based on biased readings of Islamic violence. So, this begs the question, are fundamentalist atheists hypocrites? They are highlighting extravagant violence as an apparent 'remedy' for the evil of religion. They also threaten to eradicate the entirety of a religion (i.e. Islam) because of the existence of a minority extremist group. In other words, they want to create a peaceful world in which religion does not exist by using the exact violence that they are wanting to eradicate. This does not seem logical. In fact, this thought is in itself irrational and inherently violent.

Nall (2008: 268) notes that fundamentalist atheists cite chapters and verses from sacred scripture to highlight that hatred and violence draws considerable support from the Bible. Here, the atheists are doing exactly what religious extremists do. Each group takes a particular passage from a sacred text out of context of the entire text to support their claim. In this situation, the fundamentalist atheist is the same as a fundamentalist religious person. There is seemingly no difference in extremism here, except for the group's own apparent purposes or benefits. Both sides of the debate are equally extreme in this case.

Nall goes on to say that this form of atheism is a response to fundamentalist religion. However, as aforementioned, many similarities can be drawn between fundamentalist atheism and fundamentalist religion. For instance, they both share the belief that what they believe is undeniably true. If one is right, the other is wrong. There is no middle path. Each therefore seeks to eradicate all contrary perspectives (Nall 2008: 269). Neither is open to discussion or taking one another's views into consideration. Atheistic fundamentalism exhibits an apocalyptic vision that we normally associate with religious fundamentalism. So, to conclude, these two types of fundamentalism are more alike than different.

References

Hitchens, C. (2008). Chapter 2: Religion Kills. In God is not Great. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Nall, J. (2008). Fundamentalist Atheism and its Intellectual Failures. Humanity and Society 32: 263-280.