Author: Ayoub Rasekh
Modern Atheism in the Balance of Critique (part 7)
Rationalism in the Perspective of New Atheism
In the previous section, rationalism, its meanings, and its applications were examined as one of the important foundations of New Atheism. After discussing the three prominent meanings and uses of rationalism, an important question arises: In which sense do modern atheists employ rationalism against theism? Do they mean the rejection of empiricism, the rejection of Sunnah, or the rational examination of religious teachings?
Modern rationalism, in the hands of atheists, has become a tool for formulating a comprehensive worldview that attempts to explain reality without reference to metaphysical concepts or traditional authorities. This approach promotes a form of self-sufficient reason, claiming that human intellect—supported by empirical data—is capable of explaining everything. Within this framework, religion is presented not merely as a philosophical rival but as an obstacle to the autonomy of human reason.
A careful reflection on the writings and statements of modern atheists shows that by this term they do not intend a rejection of empiricism, nor do they seek to offer a rational interpretation of religion. Rather, their purpose in employing rationalism is to oppose religious tradition and authority.
The philosophical debate over rationalism as the rejection of empiricism is a profound philosophical issue historically associated with thinkers such as René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, as well as with empiricists like John Locke and David Hume and their followers. This debate belongs primarily to the history of philosophy and does not directly concern modern atheists, who do not necessarily engage with philosophical questions at that depth.
Similarly, the discussion of a rational interpretation of religion is essentially an intra-religious discourse. It does not directly relate to atheists, who generally reject religious belief altogether.
Therefore, the only meaning of rationalism that truly relates to modern atheists is the second meaning—rationalism as opposition to tradition. Numerous statements and writings by proponents of New Atheism confirm this interpretation.
For instance, Richard Dawkins compares religious belief with patriotic love. In his view, patriotic devotion to one’s nation or ethnic group can disturb the world with its own forms of extremism; however, religious faith acts as a powerful silencer of rational calculation, often appearing to override all other considerations.
In fact, the main challenge posed by New Atheism to religious tradition concerns its epistemological origin. From this perspective, religious beliefs are regarded as products of the “accident of geographical birth” and irrational cultural transmission. They are considered incompatible with modern standards of rational evaluation such as testability and falsifiability. Thus, the rationalism they advocate is largely a negative and critical stance toward any form of knowledge rooted in historical tradition, regardless of its content.
According to Dawkins, belief in religion is often sustained by the appealing promise that death is not the end of life and that heaven possesses extraordinary glory. Yet he also argues that religion is fundamentally incompatible with questioning and rational critique. [1]
Elsewhere, he even refers to religious belief as an evil, since, in his opinion, it lacks rational justification and sound argumentation. He further argues that religious faith can be dangerous and that deliberately planting such beliefs in the mind of an innocent and vulnerable child is a grave mistake. [2]
In contrast to religious teachings, Dawkins places strong confidence in science and human capability to solve problems. According to him, science opens a small window through which we can consider an immense range of possibilities. [3]
As noted above, Dawkins—one of the leading figures of New Atheism—emphasizes notions such as rational calculation, the alleged irrationality of religion, the dangers of religious belief, and confidence in the power of science. Through these ideas he attempts to critique theism.
At the same time, these themes are precisely those emphasized by rationalism understood as the rejection of tradition. When these observations are placed together, it becomes evident that Dawkins adopts a rationalist stance in this specific sense and seeks to challenge belief in God from that perspective.
Therefore, based on the presented evidence, it can be concluded that the rationalism advocated by New Atheism is neither the rejection of empiricism nor the rational reinterpretation of religion. Rather, it is rationalism understood as the critique and rejection of religious tradition.
This self-proclaimed rationality introduces criteria such as rational calculation, argumentative justification, and confidence in the authority of science, and regards anything that falls outside this framework—including religious doctrines and beliefs concerning the transcendent—as lacking credibility.
Continues…
Previous Part
References:
[1] Dawkins, p. 306.
[2] Ibid., p. 309.
[3] Ibid., p. 374.
