I just finished Chris Hedges book "When Atheism Becomes Religion", about the movement of the "new atheists". It is really disappointing
I knew that Hedges is a gifted polemicist, but in this book he makes exactly the same mistake as those he criticizes (Dawkins, Hitchens et al...) : He chooses the most extreme persons, looks for the most extreme statements from their books, and then builds a straw man out of it, which he can attack.
Here's a quote from the book:
"The agenda of the new atheists, however, is disturbing. These atheists embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They propose a route to collective salvation and the moral advancement of the human species through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving toward collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and the Enlightenment."
If that were true, then Dawkins, should he ever gain political power, would build some kind of new Stalinist empire. That is absurd.
The essential difference: The new atheists want to improve (not: perfect !) the situation of mankind and they don't want to create a "new man" like the fascist and communist utopists of the 20th century.
Even if the new atheists are fanatics, they are harmless fanatics. They do not want to torture, imprison or kill those who oppose them.
It is a good point. In order to hammer home our arguments and vent our emotions we commonly select the most extreme examples to lambast. For example, a relative handful of extreme right wing preachers come to represent “evangelicalism”. Furthermore, the views of the handful are distorted and exaggerated in order to make them appear to be more of a threat than they really are. It’s the same with these New Atheists. If they are a dire threat it is only because anyone believes they are a threat. We have the option of ignoring them if we wish.
It’s a way of saying, “These others are evil, idiotic, ignorant, and a danger to life on earth. I’ll be your leader. Join with me in a seething cauldron of perpetual anger and fear”!
Something I have noticed with criticism, and especially with critical books is that whatever they are blaming the other person or party of is something they secretly want themselves.
For example, one of the most prevalent arguments from climate change deniers is that the people pushing climate change are generating an artificial crisis to gain power, despite the fact that much of this disinformation is being pushed by people who manufactured a crisis to get into power, and are now spreading disinformation to maintain the status quo.