After writing my little post yesterday on A Very Atheistic Christmas, a number of people made comments on Twitter that I identify with. In recent years, they noted, there seems to have been a resurgence of left-wing pundits affirming avowedly Christian beliefs. I agree. One such pundit who comes to mind is Elizabeth Bruenig, whose writing I absolutely adore (I actually wouldn’t even use the word “pundit” to describe her, as it seems inherently pejorative). The fact that she is a thoroughgoing Christian (Catholic) as well as a leftist/socialist makes her extra compelling — that’s a somewhat niche ideological category. It also gives her writing a unique valence, and it’s why she’s earned plaudits from across the spectrum: she has a well-considered take on things, and expresses those takes cogently. You need not agree with everything she says in order to appreciate the perspective she brings.

Thanks to the efforts of Bruenig and some others, left-wing Christian thought has enjoyed something of a rejuvenation lately, at least in the rarified circles of Internet Political Commentary. On the other hand, strident atheism has come to be associated with “New Atheism,” and thereby with overly-aggressive, largely male expositors of a sort of fervent obnoxious zealotry.

First, I think the concept of “New Atheism” has run its course. “New Atheism” only emerged as a proto-category because in the early-to-mid “aughts,” a slew of best-selling books were published from a broadly atheistic perspective — Richard Dawkins’ “God Delusion,” Christopher Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great,” Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith,” and arguably Daniel Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell.” Though these books were only very tangentially related, they were grouped under the same “New Atheist” banner because they all operated on the premise that monotheistic religion is not true and ought to be publicly rebutted. Around this time, organized “secular” groups became somewhat more prominent, including on college campuses. Atheists held widely-covered national conferences. “New Atheism” became “a thing,” but never a thing quite embraced in elite commentary circles, for a variety of reasons.

I read those books as a teen and derived a lot of value from them. They helped clarify my thinking on matters pertaining to religion and also helped hone my critical thinking skills. I didn’t necessarily identify as a “New Atheist” or feel I was a member of any particular “movement,” but the books helped equip me with reasoning tools which I could later apply to other facets of life. And yet the nuance-free “backlash” to this supposed “movement” persists even today — often perpetuated by Media Elites who take a condescending tone, notwithstanding their own personal atheism (or at least secularism). They use the alleged brashness of Annoying Atheist Internet Guys as a convenient foil, usually without bothering to grapple with their actual ideas. “New Atheism” is an “enemy” against which they can assert their cultural superiority: “I’m basically secular too but I’m not irritating about it like those dudes on the internet. Those guys are JUST LIKE evangelical Christians — they just don’t know it. LOL at them. Now please read my blog post on the gender politics of ABC’s 2013 primetime TV lineup.”

I agree that atheism probably ought not to be one’s prime identifier in life, as it’s sort of devoid of content; it’s just a rejection of the “theism” postulate, which is to say, it’s a rejection of the claim that an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being exists and has a hand in dictating our daily affairs. It would be a little odd to organize one’s life around this principle, but it’s still a relevant trait. Religion has been such a driving force throughout history, and remains so in large swaths of the world’s population — is it any surprise that notable quantities of people would want to “organize” around their mutual rejection of these ideas? Much of the United States thinks a desert resurrection 2000 years ago had metaphysical implications for all humanity till the end of time… what’s the problem with folks getting together online (and IRL) to discuss their shared rejection of this rather weighty thesis?

That all said, I bring up E. Bruenig because I would much rather read the writing of someone with whom I fundamentally disagree on core philosophical tenets than someone who is wishy-washy or apathetic about these issues. How exactly can you be apathetic about the question of whether unbelievers are destined to burn in hell for eternity? According to mainstream Christian doctrine (leaving aside various sectarian differences), if you don’t accept Jesus as the Son of God, there’s a pretty good likelihood that you will be tortured in hellfire for an infinite period of time. You, all your friends, family, coworkers, and everyone you’ve ever known will suffer this fate, lest they affirm the supremacy of Christ. That’s… kind of a big deal, yes?

I get that religious belief isn’t much of a live issue for much of our media class, whose main sacred ritual is going to brunch. What I do resent is the condescending attitude taken toward those of us with a deep interest in these questions — religious or not.

—

Merry Christmas, heathens. Did you know there are multiple ways to support this publication? Medium, GoFundMe, PayPal, or Bitcoin.