Changes

Social scientists long embraced the “secularization thesis,” according to which religion will inevitably decline as modern science advances. But now, says LeDrew, many acknowledge that scenario was “a product of ideology” rather than empirical fact. Thus, the New Atheism could be seen as a promotional effort to defend against “a perceived failure of secularism in practice in late modern society.”... When examined closely, he sees the New Atheism as “secular fundamentalism, a modern utopian ideology” that’s “essentially political.”...

Social scientists long embraced the “secularization thesis,” according to which religion will inevitably decline as modern science advances. But now, says LeDrew, many acknowledge that scenario was “a product of ideology” rather than empirical fact. Thus, the New Atheism could be seen as a promotional effort to defend against “a perceived failure of secularism in practice in late modern society.”... When examined closely, he sees the New Atheism as “secular fundamentalism, a modern utopian ideology” that’s “essentially political.”...

To LeDrew, current atheism is much more than a mere critique of religious faith or absence of belief. It “ignores the reservoirs of knowledge offered by the social sciences, which add complexities to our understanding of religion that the New Atheists prefer to ignore, indulging in the kind of willful ignorance that they disparage religion for promoting.” Therefore, it’s “an ideology,” defined as “a schematic or rigid framework of preconceived ideas that shape, and thus distort, understanding.” It must exclude social scientists’ thinking about religion and obscure “social reality.”<ref>[This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref>}}

To LeDrew, current atheism is much more than a mere critique of religious faith or absence of belief. It “ignores the reservoirs of knowledge offered by the social sciences, which add complexities to our understanding of religion that the New Atheists prefer to ignore, indulging in the kind of willful ignorance that they disparage religion for promoting.” Therefore, it’s “an ideology,” defined as “a schematic or rigid framework of preconceived ideas that shape, and thus distort, understanding.” It must exclude social scientists’ thinking about religion and obscure “social reality.”<ref>[https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2015/11/20/this-just-in-from-oxford-press-turning-the-intellectual-tables-on-new-atheists This just in from Oxford Press: Turning the intellectual tables on 'New Atheists'] by Richard Osling</ref>}}

[[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of new atheist authors.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism],  A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref>

[[Vox Day]]'s book ''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]'' found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of new atheist authors.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-irrational-atheist-by-vox-day Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism],  A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008, reviewed by Lita Cosner</ref>