A battle in a religious vacuum

As New Atheism has grown old, some analysts have made a distinction between atheism and “Atheism+,” by which they mean atheism with extreme leftist add-ons. New Atheism was always leftist, but it’s in the nature of leftism that it will evolve ever further leftward, until the old forerunners are left lagging behind in the dust. Various controversies have widened this gap over the years, and this new year has already brought us yet another one, involving not one but three old-school atheist celebrities. 

The drama began when the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) published two secular views on transgenderism, one in favor by FFRF fellow Kat Grant and one against by board member Jerry Coyne, who’s known for his popular writing on evolutionary science. Grant’s piece, unironically titled “What is a Woman?” concluded with the tautology that “A woman is whoever she says she is.” Coyne’s response, “Biology is Not Bigotry,” made straightforward arguments that this is nonsense, though still being sure to tout his politically leftist credentials, even using Grant’s preferred “they” pronoun. He insists that he’s “as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!” He’s on board with the sort of activism FFRF’s legal arm is infamous for—serving schools with notices of church-state separation violations, suing state officials over mandatory Bible lessons in schools or hanging the Ten Commandments in the classroom, all that good old-fashioned atheist stuff. But Coyne’s essay concludes with frank concern about “mission creep,” echoing worries that we now know were already shared by fellow board members Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins.

The day after the article went live, FFRF unpublished it amid a wave of backlash, despite a disclaimer that Coyne’s views didn’t necessarily represent the whole foundation. Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins then proceeded to resign from the board in quick succession. Their resignation letters all hit the same beats. Coyne accused FFRF of itself taking on the trappings of religion by treating him as an apostate who had blasphemed trans dogma. Pinker said the organization had abandoned its core values and “turned the names Freethought Today and Freethought Now into sad jokes.” Dawkins rebuked them for caving in to the “hysterical squeals” of the far left, though he charmingly expressed sadness that they were parting ways and hoped they could still collaborate or enjoy “delightful musical evenings” together.

RNS reports that this cascading catastrophe has led the FFRF to dissolve its entire 14-member board. Co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor believes the parting of ways with Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins “was probably inevitable,” saying the foundation is “committed” to maintaining “allyship” with people identifying as LGBTQ+ (who make up 13% of their membership). For all the old New Atheists’ insistence that they still supported “trans rights,” it wasn’t enough for Atheism+. 

In a tart follow-up piece for the Spectator, Dawkins scorns the idea that he and his colleagues bear any blame for creating a religious vacuum. The fact that Christian religion could be a bulwark against trans religion still doesn’t make it any more true or rational. And why should people think it provides the only good reasons to reject transanity when all the answers are right there in logic and science?

Young atheist Sarah Haider responds that Dawkins can go on thinking people shouldn’t have a God-shaped hole, but oh well: It seems like a lot of them do. Not her, of course. She doesn’t like this new turn to irrationality any more than Dawkins does. She still acknowledges that religion places a “ceiling” on human progress. However, she argues, it may be time for atheists to admit it also provides a “floor.” But this follows the example of other Christianity-friendly public intellectuals in offering a merely pragmatic frame. The central question remains unanswered: What is true?

All truth is God’s truth, meaning logic and science can provide natural revelation to the religious and irreligious alike. Christians aren’t stopping Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins from using their reason to follow the natural light where it leads. However, we propose that it’s rational to wonder whether the natural light is trying to tell us something. "All religion is bad, because all religion is irrational” is a bare assertion with no evidence. And, as a famous atheist once said, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

As more and more people become freshly curious about Christianity, it will be imperative to make it clear that refugees of the sexual revolution are not fleeing from unreason to unreason. On the contrary, they are fleeing from unreason to the Source of reason itself. New converts like Ayaan Hirsi Ali may not feel equipped to tackle Dawkins on his own turf here, but one hopes that over time their faith will grow in confidence and integration.

Meanwhile, conservative Christians can be forgiven some schadenfreude as the secular left continues to eat its own tail. We wish our enemies well, but it sure is fun to watch them all fighting each other.