Comment: The New Atheists鈥� arguments are just as violent as religion Published on: 26 July 2018 Writing for The Conversation, Dr Nick Megoran discusses how the arguments of the 'New Atheists' are just as violent as those of the hardline religious leaders they so vociferously denounce. Professor Richard Dawkins next to a bus displaying an atheist message in 2009. , Celebrity atheists such as appear to claim the moral high ground when it comes to violence. Dawkins, along with and the late , insist that , then atheism is inherently more pacific. After all, if all the evils in the world can be blamed on religion, then arguably eliminating religion is not only desirable but a moral obligation for atheists who believe in peace. that in the , these atheists have been surprisingly willing to align themselves with policies which are at least as violent 鈥� and in some cases more so 鈥� than many of those perpetrated in the name of religion. Our study (jointly conducted by a Christian, an agnostic and an atheist) involved analysing the writing of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens 鈥� the so-called 鈥淣ew Atheists鈥�. We sought to establish their positions on US and UK foreign policy since the . We critically examined their bestselling books, along with their op-eds, social media posts and videos, to ascertain their positions 鈥� not on science or morality 鈥� but on politics, especially foreign policy. They each argue that religion inherently incites violence, whereas atheism is more peaceful. Dawkins in particular asks: 鈥溾�� Atheism, ancient and modern The word 鈥渁theism鈥� stems from the Greek a-theos, 鈥渨ithout deities鈥�. Although the term was coined in antiquity, it is only in the Enlightenment that the first self-professed atheists became known. This modern European atheism promised emancipation from superstition 鈥� but quickly morphed into extreme violence. At the apex of the , the Jacobin government implemented the original 鈥溾�� in its murderous effort to impose state atheism. The early USSR鈥檚 campaign against religion, spearheaded by 鈥溾��, involved the violent persecution of religious believers and institutions. With the demise of the Soviet Union and a global resurgence of political religion from the 1970s onwards, that atheism was in terminal decline. But the early 21st century has witnessed the rise of writers like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. They emerged as public intellectuals advancing ferocious attacks on religion as both untrue and uniquely dangerous. Their arguments are not new. But, unlike more ponderous academic atheist philosophers, they seemingly cultivated combative and acerbic, media-savvy personae. Their success at , giving engaging public talks and cultivating a , has made them minor celebrities. For example, Dawkins has been depicted in , and 鈥� and even . New atheism and the 鈥榃ar on Terror鈥� All three of these New Atheists were . Hitchens also , while Harris saw Western engagement with Islam and the Muslim world as part of a war that the West must win, or else face 鈥渂ondage鈥�. In his 2004 book, The End of Faith, Harris (p.131): While it would be comforting to believe that our dialogue with the Muslim world has, as one of its possible outcomes, a future of mutual tolerance, nothing guarantees this result 鈥� least of all tenets of Islam. Given the constraints of Muslim orthodoxy, given the penalties within Islam for radical (and reasonable) adaption to modernity, I think it is clear that Islam must find some way to revise itself, peacefully or otherwise. What this will mean is not all obvious. What is obvious, however, is that the West must win the argument or win the war. All else will be bondage. And in specific reference to the Afghan war, Harris (p.53): There is in fact no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified killing them in self defence. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas. We argue that the three supported this war because they read global politics through the lens of their atheism. They appear to see the West as locked in an existential war with religion, particularly Islam. There are four striking aspects of this atheist vision of global geopolitics. First, they see religion as essentially violent. 鈥�,鈥� says Harris. , adds Dawkins, who claims it is the 鈥渄eadly weapon鈥� which is 鈥溾��. This analysis obscures the murky role of foreign powers and corrupt rulers in the Middle East and the ability of charismatic leaders to co-opt religion and . Although highly critical of Christianity鈥檚 historical record, they regard Islam as an existential threat to modern, secular societies. Whereas US President George W. Bush insisted that 鈥溾��, the New Atheists disagree. Dawkins singles out Islam as 鈥溾��. 鈥淲e are at war with Islam,鈥� argues Harris, not merely with 鈥渁n otherwise peaceful religion that has been .鈥� The New Atheists are convinced that their version of Western civilisation is superior to what they understand to be the religious-based cultures of the Middle East. 鈥淎ll the world鈥檚 Muslims,鈥� , 鈥渉ave fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.鈥� Hitchens wrote that the 9/11 attacks led him to feel 鈥渆xhilaration鈥� because they plunged the world into an 鈥溾��. Finally, they exhibit a version of the 鈥渨hite man鈥檚 burden鈥� to rescue Afghanistan, Iraq and other places from their own religious backwardness. Adopting what looks like a classic colonial attitude, Harris writes that 鈥渉owever mixed or misguided our intentions were鈥� in invading Iraq 鈥渨e are attempting, at considerable cost to ourselves, 鈥�. Imagine no religion Harris extends his argument by suggesting that the and may be ethical in what he calls 鈥溾��. At its extreme, he contends that 鈥淢uslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence鈥� because theologically they don鈥檛 fear death. He reasons they are immune to the usual logic of Mutually Assured Destruction. Therefore, if an Islamist government acquired nuclear weapons, then 鈥渁 nuclear first strike of our own鈥� may be 鈥渢he only course of action available to us鈥�. The irony in this argument, which began with the declaration that religion is uniquely violent, is apparently missed by Harris, who has since qualified his position on torture as : My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (鈥榯orture鈥� by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to water-board a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like him). Our research demonstrates the paradox that although New Atheists claim that their ideology is more enlightened and peaceful than religion, they often end up advocating violence. This is because they exhibit a simplistic view of the world as being divided between two civilisations 鈥� secular and religious 鈥� which cannot coexist. In this, ironically, they arguably mirror the hardline religious leaders whom they so vociferously denounce. Fifteen years after the invasion of Iraq , it is clear that there needs to be a more nuanced understanding of Middle Eastern societies and politics. Those nuances are as unlikely to be found in the analysis of fundamentalist atheists as they are in their religious antagonists. Nick Megoran, Reader in Political Geography, This article was originally published on . Read the . Share: Latest News 缅北禁地 recognised with geography award 缅北禁地 has been awarded the Highly Commended Geographical Association Publishers Award for its collaboration with Time for Geography, the UK鈥檚 open-access, dedicated video platform. published on: 16 April 2026 缅北禁地 historians mark General Strike centenary To mark the 100th anniversary of the British General Strike and miners鈥� lock-out of 1926, historians at 缅北禁地 are organising a series of events on its enduring legacy. published on: 16 April 2026 Comment: NCP is in administration Writing for The Conversation, Erwei (David) Xiang discusses how some big companies like NCP are so dependent on debt that they can鈥檛 adjust to change. published on: 16 April 2026 Facts and figures
![缅北禁地 logo](/gomobileassets/img/logo.svg" "缅北禁地"){kind=logo}