Neo-Atheism’s Victory Was a Loss for Atheism
By dismissing religion’s positive aspects and creating a societal void, neo-atheism has inadvertently paved the way for activists to find meaning in secular progressive causes.
This article may contain affiliate links.
Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
About the Author
Kushal Mehra is the host of The Cārvāka Podcast. His primary interest lies in redefining Indian scepticism using Indian epistemological categories. His podcast covers a wide range of subjects like philosophy, public policy, sports and current affairs. Subscribe to his YouTube channel and find him on X: @kushal_mehra
The following essay is a lightly edited excerpt from the author’s new book Nastik: Why I Am Not an Atheist.
Neo-atheism, led by many prominent atheists, advocated for a secular, rationalist worldview and the rejection of religious dogma. However, it is essential to recognize that every policy decision or movement has second-order effects that are often overlooked. In the case of neo-atheism, some argue that it has inadvertently contributed to the rise of Atheism+ and “wokeism,” resulting in unintended societal consequences.
Neo-atheism initially arose with noble intentions, seeking to challenge the negative aspects of religious belief and promote reason and critical thinking. However, critics argue that in its zeal to combat religious dogma, neo-atheism may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, discarding the positive aspects of religion and leaving behind a societal vacuum. This vacuum led to the emergence of Atheism+, a movement that aimed to address the perceived shortcomings of traditional atheism.
Atheism+ sought to incorporate social justice, feminism, and other progressive issues into the atheist discourse, departing from traditional atheism’s focus on the nonexistence of deities. As religion often provides a sense of meaning and purpose, some individuals who embraced atheism turned to these progressive issues to find meaning in their lives. By incorporating social justice, feminism, and other progressive issues into its framework, Atheism+ aimed to create a more inclusive and morally engaged atheist community.
The rise of wokeism, a term used to describe an increased awareness of and commitment to social justice issues, can be seen as a by-product of the shift towards Atheism+. Wokeism is a child of neo-atheism, resulting from a one-night stand that produced a new generation of activists seeking meaning in a post-religious world. Social media has played a significant role in the spread of wokeism, providing a platform for activists to share their ideas and connect with like-minded individuals.
Wokeism represents a broader cultural trend that emphasizes social justice and activism. With its roots in the civil rights movement, wokeism has evolved to encompass various issues, from racial and gender equality to LGBTQ+ rights and environmental justice. Some argue that the rise of wokeism can be linked to the decline of traditional religious institutions and the search for new sources of meaning and community in a secular world.
However, this shift in focus has yet to be universally embraced, with some critics arguing that Atheism+ has strayed too far from its original purpose and become overly politicized. As individuals turn away from religion, they may be drawn to secular movements that offer a sense of purpose and moral guidance, such as wokeism and Atheism+.
However, both Atheism+ and wokeism have faced criticism for their perceived dogmatism and intolerance. Opponents argue that these movements can sometimes resemble the religious dogmas they claim to reject, with rigid adherence to certain beliefs and the suppression of dissenting voices. Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, in their book The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure have explained how the culture of safetyism, which prioritizes emotional and psychological safety, can lead to an overemphasis on microaggressions—small, unintentional slights that some individuals can perceive as harmful. They suggest that constantly focusing on microaggressions can create a hostile environment and perpetuate a victim mentality, undermining young people’s resilience and emotional well-being.
They also criticize trigger warnings, which alert people to potentially distressing content, arguing that they can contribute to a culture of overprotection and limit exposure to challenging ideas. Additionally, they express serious concerns about the increasing demand for censorship on college campuses, which they argue can stifle intellectual diversity and critical thinking.
While they both acknowledge the importance of recognizing social identities and systemic inequalities, they argue that an excessive focus on identity politics and intersectionality can lead to the formation of us-versus-them mentalities and exacerbate social divides. They advocate for a more nuanced approach to social justice that transcends identity-based divisions and encourages empathy and understanding.
Lukianoff and Haidt express concerns about the rise of “cancel culture,” in which individuals or groups are publicly shamed or ostracized for perceived transgressions, often related to social justice issues. They argue that this phenomenon can create fear and self-censorship, stifling open dialogue and intellectual diversity. This has led to concerns about the potential erosion of free speech and intellectual diversity in the name of social justice and progressive values.
Another brilliant analysis of the quasi-religious nature of wokeism is by John McWhorter’s book Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. McWhorter critiques the contemporary social justice movement, specifically focusing on how it intersects with race and racial issues in the United States. McWhorter, a linguist and social critic, argues that wokeism is counterproductive in addressing racial inequality.
The book explains how wokeism often emphasizes victimhood and systemic oppression, which McWhorter believes can distract from more constructive approaches to addressing racial inequality. McWhorter’s central argument is that wokeism, despite its intentions, ultimately betrays Black America by promoting division and focusing on superficial issues rather than substantive solutions to systemic racial inequality.
The intensity of debates around neo-atheism, Atheism+, and wokeism has contributed to increased societal polarization and division. People with opposing views are becoming more entrenched in their positions, leading to increased hostility and decreased opportunities for constructive dialogue. As progressive values gain prominence, institutions such as universities, corporations, and government agencies may prioritize diversity and inclusion initiatives. While this can lead to positive changes, it may also result in concerns about overreach, the suppression of intellectual diversity, and the potential for tokenism.
The rise of Atheism+ and wokeism may impact policymaking as politicians and decision-makers respond to the demands of these movements. Policies may be implemented to address social justice issues, but they may also face criticism for being overly ideological or prioritizing certain groups over others. The debate surrounding affirmative action in America is a perfect example of a policy that has led all sides to harden their stand after the Supreme Court ruling in favour of the Students for Fair Admissions in their case against Harvard and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
In conclusion, while neo-atheism began with laudable intentions, it has arguably given rise to unintended consequences, including Atheism+ and wokeism. By discarding the positive aspects of religion and leaving a societal void, neo-atheism may have inadvertently paved the way for a new generation of activists seeking meaning in secular progressive causes. While these movements have gained significant traction in recent years, they have also been criticized and concerned, highlighting the complexity of the relationship between atheism, religion, and social justice.
Addressing concerns about dogmatism and intolerance in movements like Atheism+ and wokeism requires a multifaceted approach that promotes open dialogue, critical thinking, and empathy.
This article is an excerpt from the author’s new book Nastik: Why I Am Not an Atheist, available now on Amazon.
Wow, you made it to the end of the article! I hope you enjoyed it or found it useful. If so, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.
If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…
 | A guest post by
|
The most important value to me is searching for the truth, for the reality that is revealed by prolonged, deep questioning. Most religious ideas fail to hold up under that process. I get that religious faith is a source of comfort to believers, and I have sometimes wished I could join them in their beliefs and their worshipping communities. Some people say that my value system is about the Western Enlightenment, but I disagree. People have searched for truth throughout recorded history, and probably long before.
This is a very superficial article which misses the point. The author's thesis is based on the assumption that somehow Atheism+ CAUSED wokeism by weakening traditional religions. This assumption is false and, frankly, silly. The atheist movement did not cause wokeism. On the contrary, it was a VICTIM of wokeism, just like all other formerly progressive movements. The entire political left has been ideologically captured and corrupted by "woke" ideologies. Atheism+ involved adding left-wing politics to atheism, and that is what dragged it down when the left imploded.
Although the author of this article mentions identity politics, he fails to name the real causes of wokeism. Those causes include postmodern philosophy, the collapse of the political left, the collapse of the Soviet Union (thus removing a major anchor, albeit very imperfect, for left-wing sympathies), and the abandonment of Enlightenment values, in particular the abandonment of universalism.
Liberal Christian churches are very attracted to wokeism. In fact, wokeism very much resembles a sect of liberal Christianity which has evolved into something very illiberal.
Wokeism is not a "secular religion." That very expression is an oxymoron. Wokeism is a parareligion (or even a religion according to some authors). We need secularism, i.e. separation between religion and State. In particular, we need SEPARATION BETWEEN WOKEISM AND STATE.