New Atheism's Old—and Flawed—History

In all the controversy over the bestsellers by the so-called New Atheists—Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens—little attention has focused on their use of historical evidence to buttress their views. History, they argue, furnishes the evidence of how dreadful religion has been in the past. Only by eliminating religion will we have a new Enlightenment leading to a future based on reason. Their ideas come out of a larger community of writers, bloggers, and websites promoting atheism and vigorously attacking religion. The historiography found in these various sources, however, contains serious shortcomings that place it outside the mainstream of historical discourse. When it comes to history, the New Atheists fall short of the evidence-based reasoning they otherwise champion.

Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and their allies subscribe to a 19th-century view of history that posits an eternal war between science and religion. Europe suffered through a dark age of 1,000 years following the fall of Rome, interrupted finally by the dawn of the Renaissance and the subsequent emergence of science in the Enlightenment. Harris imagines that if a "Kingdom of Reason" had emerged at the time of the Crusades, "we might have had modern democracy and the Internet by 1600."¹ Instead, we got the Inquisition and other evils because religion deluded people into mistrusting evidence and accepting dogma. Hitchens calls for a "renewed Enlightenment" to save us from the horrors of religion.²

Although historians of science have largely abandoned the theme of science and religion eternally at war,³ New Atheist historiography reaffirms it. Victor Stenger, in his book defending the New Atheism, invokes the authority of the two books most influential in defining this war: J. W. Draper, History of the Conflict between Science and Religion (1873) and Andrew Dickson White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896).⁴ For Stenger, the war between science and religion started in pre-Christian antiquity and forms the foundation of his version of history. In defending this position, he and other champions of the New Atheism show no evidence of having read and considered the work of contemporary historians of science.

Although physicist Steven Weinberg is familiar with recent historians of science, he, too, puts in a good word for the "conflict thesis" of Draper and White even though he acknowledges that they have fallen into disfavor.⁵ In a debate in November 2011, "Would the World Be Better Without Religion?," A.C. Grayling assumed the accuracy of the "conflict thesis" and blamed Christianity for "derailing" European history for over 1,000 years by rejecting the wisdom of pre-Christian antiquity.⁶

Mussolini and Hitler meet at Brenner Pass, March 18, 1940. A still from a British newsreel.

Next there is the historical evidence presented by the New Atheists. They all champion "evidence-based reasoning," but the evidence they cite from the past and the conclusions they draw from it lack credibility, at least by the standards of professional historians. The New Atheist treatment of the 20th century furnishes an obvious case in point.

They proclaim that the bloodshed caused by Stalin and Hitler came out of ideologies more religious than secular. They avoid giving consideration to any possible secular origins of the Soviet and Nazi regimes, preferring to characterize their ideologies as "dogma," "political religion," and other forms of irrational thought. For Dawkins, Stalin's "brutality" had nothing to do with his atheism. In fact, his brief time studying in a Russian Orthodox seminary might have taught him "to revere absolutist faith, strong authority and a belief that the ends justify the means."⁷ Annie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation agrees that Stalin "was seminary educated, and he was not killing in the name of atheism." His regime was a form of "religious totalitarianism."⁸ Dawkins also reassures us that he does "not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca—or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwedagon Pagoda, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan," conveniently overlooking evidence to the contrary in mainstream...