Robert Wright is correct that the Israel-Palestinian conflict has historically not been so much about religion as it has been about land ownership. However, the implication of his comments regarding Sam Harris's remarks suggest that the problem is more a result of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The facts argue that it is not so much the occupation of the Israelis as the insistence by the Palestinians that Israel be destroyed and on their right to use violence to achieve that goal. The historical record shows Israel has been willing to exchange land for peace. They offered to return all the territories captured in the 6-day war in exchange for peace; this offer was spurned by the Arab countries at the Khartoum Summit in the fall of 1967. They returned the Sinai to Egypt for peace, forcibly removing settlements in the process. They turned over Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in the hope of achieving peace (and again forcibly removing Israeli settlers in the process); they received over 10,000 rockets in return. They offered Arafat at Camp David and Taba in 2000 to evacuate 96% of the West Bank for peace, with border adjustments to keep certain settlements close to the Green Line. Arafat's responded by starting the 2nd Intifada.

I agree that the cause of the conflict is not religion. But the cause is not Israeli occupation; it is the intransigence of the Palestinian leadership and their preference that Israel be destroyed by violence.

To believe Mr. Petermark that "it is the intransigence of the Palestinian leadership and their preference that Israel be destroyed by violence." it takes that the Palestinians either have a hidden super-weapon to use to destroy Israel an they have chose to hide it for 60 years waiting for a moment that will never come, or they are unique specie with sub-zero IQ to not understand the overwhelming power of the Israeli army.
A little respect for the reason could help a little bit here...

"So the last thing you need is for the world’s most famous teacher of evolution, Richard Dawkins, to be among the world’s most zealously proselytizing atheists. These atmospherics only empower your enemies."

One would have thought so, wouldn't one? It's just a shame that Wright can only offer "atmospherics" and doesn't bother with presenting any actual evidence of the deleterious effect that Dawkins et al have on this particular front in the war against religiously inspired stupidity.

"Making 'Western” synonymous with 'aggressively atheist' isn’t a recipe for quelling anti-Western Islamist radicalism."

And where do we see that happening other than articles by the likes of Robert Wright, Terry Eaglleton, Karren Armstrong and Chris Moony? Does the term 'self-fulfilling' mean anything to these people?

I'm growing increasingly tired of intellectuals jumping on the New Atheist-bashing bandwagon flush with assertions and devoid of supported argument, insisting that those of us who don't share the beliefs of others should bite our lips. What's so wrong about simply telling it how it is?

"If you're a Midwestern American, fighting to keep Darwin in the public schools and intelligent design out, the case you make to conservative Christians is that teaching evolution won't turn their children into atheists."

I'm a Midwestern American fighting to keep Darwin in the public schools and intelligent design out. There is no honest way to promise Conservative Christians that teaching evolution won't turn their children into atheists. The idea that atheists should politely keep their opinions to themselves so that Wright can fool Creationist parents into thinking that their children won't learn to think critically is both ridiculous and offensive to both atheists and Conservative Christians alike.

Wright likes to imply that he is an atheist who is forced by the evidence to argue against his fellow non-believers on a (rather large) number of issues, but that's just pretend. In fact he is a deist desperately protecting his belief in God, just as all God believers do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Wright#Personal_Views

Robert Wright wrote, "All the great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't feel threatened or disrespected." Then how does Wright explain Catholic priests abusing children sexually and the Catholic Church covering up that pattern of criminal activity in several countries? Wright's analysis can only put the blame on the children for "threatening" or "disrespecting" their priests. Wright's unconditional defense of religion is logically absurd and morally bankrupt.

Wright also wrote that the point of the New Atheism "was to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers." No, the essence of the New Atheism is not to ridicule individuals (that's PZ Myers). The principle of the New Atheism is we claim the right to criticize any ideas, methods, organizations, and behaviors of religions the same way anyone can criticize anything else. For example, just as any US foreign policy is fair game for criticism, the Catholic Church's coverups of criminal activities are also fair game for criticism. It's that simple. We have simply ended deference to religion and taboo against criticism. As Russell Blackford wrote, "The New Atheism is just the restoration of normal transmission."

But this does not mean we are always negative or we read from a fundamentalist playbook. I'm happy to say religions have their pros and cons, and I'm happy to say Dawkins and Harris might be correct or incorrect on any claim they might make. I'm happy to see anything on the table for debate. But Wright consistently opposes *any* and *all* criticisms of religion. On this basis, I say Wright's ideology is fundamentalist, intolerant, and obsolete.

"But the New Atheists' main short-term goal wasn't to turn believers into atheists, it was to turn atheists into New Atheists -- fellow fire-breathing preachers of the anti-gospel. The point was to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers."

Neither Dawkins, Harris, Dennett nor Hitchens have said anything of the sort. However, lack of evidence didn't stop Wright from claiming there is a moral agent that is improving human societies, so why should he let it stop him here. And I don't think Wright knows the meaning of "cool" if he thinks any of these four gentlemen can influence something being cool or uncool. In fact, atheists in general are about as far away from cool as any group in America. Somewhere between extremely disliked and hated is more like it.

"Though the New Atheists claim to be a progressive force, they often abet fundamentalists and reactionaries, from the heartland of America to the Middle East."

I won't waste time with this abomination. Just WTF?

"Making 'Western' synonymous with 'aggressively atheist' isn't a recipe for quelling anti-Western Islamist radicalism."

First, let's drop the BS and replace "Western" with "American." It would be impossible to make "American" synonymous with even "atheist" in our lifetime. Second, the four gentlemen certainly haven't claimed they are able to quell Islamist radicalism, where did Wright pull that one from? Third, Islamist radicals are anti-American because of our foreign policy, not anything any public intellectual could say.

"Axiomatic to New Atheism is that religion is not just factually wrong, but the root of evil, which suggests that other proposed root causes of the sort typically stressed on the left aren't really the problem."

New Atheism is a PR term, there are no axioms. "The root of evil..." nice straw man. What's with quoting partial sentences? Can't Wright find one full sentence that supports his point? Or at least something that contains more than a mere suggestion? (Mentioned Orwell, nice work, check that box)

"All the great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't feel threatened or disrespected."

This is priceless. Is Wright suggesting that four gentlemen who have almost no name recognition in the Muslim world are threatening and disrespecting Islam more than Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Bagram, et al.? Or does he just mean American Christians can't turn the other cheek (and to words, not blows)?

CAPTCHA: ist duelling

Ok, so maybe he's technically correct when he says that the root of the Israel/Palestine conflict is not religion. But the reason Israel exists is because of religion. Two holy books give two peoples of two different religions a claim to the same land.

If I wrote a book saying I have the right to annex my neighbor's house, it wouldn't get me very far. If the book is holy, it somehow becomes a legitimate claim.

Religion caused the conflict of claims which caused the problem.

People should read Joseph Campbell before writing on Religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYpxLJuU1E

I don't think Wright suggests in any way that criticisms of religiosity should be quietened. His argument hinges around this conclusion:

"Maybe this is the New Atheists' biggest problem: As living proof that religion isn't a prerequisite for divisive fundamentalism, they are walking rebuttals to their own ideology."

GBJ, i interpreted your argument as suggesting that proponents of intelligent design should keep their opinions to themselves. Critical thinking won't eventuate with a one-sided presentation of the origins of the universe - there needs to be a pluralistic approach.

And as for Fresnobob, your "war against religiously inspired stupidity" surely could not have a hint of intolerance or divisiveness, could it? Show me your supported argument.

Don't become a new, more idiotic breed of fundamentalists. Once you think you have it completely right, you are this new breed.

I'm shocked at how badly this article misrepresents the so-called New Atheists. For one, there is no attempt to align the West with aggressive atheism. Secularism maybe, but not "aggressive" anything.

Second: "as some New Atheists have now shown, you don't have to believe in God to exhibit intolerance and incivility."

Yes, atheists do exhibit incivility if it is considered uncivil to question religious faith. However, atheists do not generally believe in intolerance. Dawkins and Harris in particular would say that you have a right to believe whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on others' beliefs -- or unbelief. Intolerance is never encouraged.

The most insulting part of this article, however, is the following:
"If you're a Midwestern American, fighting to keep Darwin in the public schools and intelligent design out, the case you make to conservative Christians is that teaching evolution won't turn their children into atheists. So the last thing you need is for the world's most famous teacher of evolution, Richard Dawkins, to be among the world's most zealously proselytizing atheists. These atmospherics only empower your enemies."

So is the writer suggesting that lack of faith (i.e. atheism or agnosticism) is inherently bad simply because intelligent design proponents might believe it to be? Better to just admit that religiosity is the default state we should all aspire to, and maybe if there's room, we can shoehorn some evolutionary biology in there.

And so what if Dawkins is an atheist and also happens to believe in evolution. There are millions of believers who also believe in Darwinian evolution. Let's just throw atheists, who mostly believe in proper science education, under the bus in order to preserve, wait for it, proper science education.

As an atheist who holds the "Four Horsemen" in some esteem, I am disappointed at the demagoguery practiced here by Robert Wright.

I am always happy to see the religious dimensions of foreign policy discussed. Often times such a discussion is taboo as it might offend personal beliefs. However, Mr. Wright could not be more wrong. One wonders if he has ever read the so called "New Atheist" publications. Calling religion what it is: superstitious, lacking in any form of evidence, wishful thinking, et cetera; is not radicalism or "fire-breathing". Obscurantist at best, and a scholar like Wright should know better.

It seems to me that Mr. Wright is afraid of offending people. Noble quality; however; it doesn't get you very far. Fact is, Mr. Wright, like Karen Armstrong, fails to see the damage done by superstitious beliefs. As Thomas Jefferson once noted: " In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the tyrant, allowing his abuses in return for protection to his own". Well put. Mr. Wright so eloquently defends totalitarian systems. Wonder why?

One thing we agree one. The "New Atheists" are not masters of philosophy or theology. Nor do they claim to be. If you are seeking such masters one might look to Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian", Ibn Warraq's "Why I am not a Muslim" or the classics such as Socrates, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, and so on. The New Atheists aren't really new at all. They are continuing a tradition of voicing dissent that has existed through the ages. The difference today is that living in a free society (sorta) allows them to fully critique religion in, perhaps, ways that in the past would have been impossible.

The idea that the New Atheists are wrong because they are wrong about the geo-political situation, or undermining them by saying they are right wing, only encourages the same confusion what gets them air time in the first place. The dialogue between religion and science, and religion and politics, is litterally impossible.

ou can say whatever you like about scientific facts and motivations, but a religious person has to believe they are doing gods bidding and they have to believe their myths are factually true, so either approach is doomed simply to make religions entrench further.

The only approach that is fair is to accept the truth of what they say about what they are doing and, if you think they are doing it all wrong, try and convince them to change from within their belief system.

This whole nasty debate should be mediated by a mature and forceful philosophical debate, but it is exactly this which doesn't exist. Unmediated by some form of conceptual nuance, all that happens is a destructive lack of genuine contact.

As a student of the History of Religions (my undergrad and constant interest) I could not agree more, and I too find the call to ridicule and attack entire groups of people alarming, and simultaneously destructive to everyone.

I am appalled to find those who I knew as liberal, educated people who profess tolerance as a virtue to be all but waving little flags going "yeah, what he said" and basically going around attacking strangers for their beliefs like a mob of bigots. Prejudice is ugly, and I see it happening within the New Atheist or Militant Atheist movement.

Dawkins has been extraordinarily hypocritical in his self titled "Militant Atheism". I respect well thought out Atheists like philosopher Daniel Dennet who proposes that the answer to religious bigotry is education -about- religion- in the anthropological sense: ' this is the history f this religion, these are the tenants, branches, practices, etc. ' In this way rather than growing up indoctrinated and ignorant about other religions (or ignorant about those who have one) children would grow up with a more balanced understanding of the -cultural- side of various religions, and perhaps more tolerant because of it. The studies on prejudice and the inoculating effect of education against prejudice are fairly persuasive.

What history does teach us is that if you attack a social group they either get more insular and stronger, or they lash back, often both.

What Dawkins has been doing is much of what he accuses religion of- being a bigot, spreading hatred, forming his own cult of personality for his personal belief system, and worst of all for a scientist, acting without data.

In response to this last frequent reply to his attacks (from a fellow Oxford Don in one case) he often says that it he doesn't need to know anything about the tooth fairy to know that the tooth fairy is a fake. Fine, but if you are going to make claims about the historical impact of the tooth fairy and it's social implications, you'd better have some actual historical and sociological hard information.

He does a cursory straw-man approach to religions in his "God Delusion" book. He dismisses everything but the easiest to attack, most two-dimensional dumbed-down version of religious belief he can find as not valid, then attacks that. Well, knowing a bit about religions, he's flat out wrong about his descriptions about what they are and what they have been historically. He's a Biologist, it's as ridiculous for him to make up stories about subjects he is uneducated about (in terms of history and social effect) as it is for non-biologists to make up biology.

As to the art piece I linked to... art history and in particular religious symbols have been fascinating to me for a while- they reveal a lot about human nature. There are certain ways of doing a portrait that are often used for cult images. The face centered and filling most of the space, the intense solid-color background, the far off look in the eye, the "god-light" (as it is often referred to in art history) coming down from above... these are
all hallmarks of a cult image. If you substitute a country's flag for the solid color it is sometimes the way leaders of military of countries are shown in propaganda images.

I nearly staggered when I saw a book with Dawkins pictured in exactly that way. He has performed nearly all the textbook tricks in cult-forming (textbook from my sociology and social-psychology textbooks on the social effects of religion).

The trick he uses most: Us and Them. -They- are stupid, or scared or weak, or lost, or crazy or just plain evil. -We- are intelligent, progressive, wise, Right, good, and we will oppose them and convert them for their own good. Sound familiar?

And if they fall into a category he would normally call "Us" (respected physicists for example) he says that of course they don't -mean- it, they really believe what We believe. They must be speaking metaphorically. The approach is to extend the arm- of course you're one of Us, you're smart and good right? You must just have been scared or badly raised or didn't know better. I'll help you be Better. And like the humans we are, people who are on the edge say "hey, yeah, I'm smart, I agree with him. And leave their brains at the door.

Before anyone reacts to this by saying "you must be one of Them, allow me to inform you that I am from an entire family of scientists. Not only are several of my family globally prominent in their fields (public health, nutrition, anthropology...) but even my Victorian great grandmothers had MAs. In Biology. I come from that, and was raised in an atmosphere of scientific inquiry and with a respect for a multiplicity of cultures and belief systems. I'm not coming to this conversation as a reactionary, but as one firmly grounded in a respect for science, religion, and humanity, with all the flaws inherent in each.

As a contemporary artist, this piece (Idol Hypocrisy) was my reaction to Dawkins: http://www.marymarch.com/idol.html

Mr. Robert Wright,

That was a very weak argument.

First of all it seems obvious that the conflict between Israel and palestinians has religious roots. It just happens that religion is also associated to political, social, economic and military issues. Your analysis is way too simplistic and out of context.

If you want to really understand the reasons of this conflict you have to go back more than 2000 years ago. Israel has been a stage for several military occupations. The israelites had to deal in the past with many invaders, namely the assyrians, the babylonians, the persians, the greeks, the romans, and later on, the arabians, the mamluks and the turks. The first occupations and the sea trade expansion lead many israelites to emigrate towards other parts of the Middle East on one side, and on the other side, towards the Mediterranean region, where they established prosperous communities.

With the arabian and turkic invasions came Islam, which was adopted by most israelites. Now, this is precisely one of the main points of why some atheists claim that without religion, there would be no point for this conflict. You just have to imageine what if both sides of this conflict recognized their common roots, quit Judaism and Islam and just focused in a rationalist and humanistic doctrine and the advantages of having a single israelite state?

The second reason for this conflict that should be taken into account is the religious repression that many jews have been subject to throughout many centuries in Europe and many islamic countries which reached its highest peak in the first half of the past century. After WWII, most jews realized that that the best way to ensure thei physical and cultural survival would be having a state/territory of their own. For cultural and religious reasons the chosen territory was Israel, their ancestral homeland, which according to the Torah, was promissed to them by a god named Yaweh.

So what i'm trying to say here is that, if the jews living in Europe had not been subject of anti-semitism it's very possible that conflict had never happened as well. The re-conquest of Israel is certainly a consequence of a series of political, economical, social and military events but all of them are heavily correlated with religious beliefs.

The main point of Richard Dawkins's accusation against religion is that religion is based not only on a huge set of beliefs which have never been proven (or can't be proven due its metaphysical nature) or that contradict science and logic (such as the belief in a god that is simultaneously omnipresent, omnisicient and omnipotent), but also on a very ambiguous moral code, which can be used to lead people into violence, prejudice and segregation. The way a person lives its religion however also depends on its scientific and moral education, life experience and the social, economical and political context in which she is inserted.

The conflict between israelis and palestinians is basically a civil war between israelites the preserved their ancestral culture and mixed with europeans and the israelites that adopted the arabian culture and religion.

But this is not the only conflict motivated by religious reasons. Yemen is another good example of this. It shows that people may fight not only for a certain religion but also for the right version of that very same religion. The same could be said about Ireland.

So, to sum it up, it's best of we replace religion by a doctrine that is solely based on the principles of humanism, rationalism, liberalism and social democracy.

I personally am an unaffiliated theist; I am confident in the existence of a god force or god being, but do not suscribe to any one human religious doctrine. I have no problem with agnostics or reasonable religious people, but atheists bug the hell out of me.
Basically, atheists never seem to understand that religions are just one form of ideology. In the time since the industrial revolution, there have been many secular ideologies that have either been openly antireligious or treated religion as a secondary factor. To name a few: Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nationalism, Capitalism, Rascism, Imperialism. The holocaust was committed by basically unreligious people. The stalinist purges and Mao's Great Leap Forward were committed by atheists. The communist nations were constantly infighting during the cold war. A 6-month war between Vietnam and China in 1979 claimed 500,000 lives. If anything, secular ideologies have shown to be much more violent and more easily manipulable than religion. Im not saying fundamentalism is good, but atheists seem to have a terribly selective understanding of history.

Of course, we're all adult enough to read these silly perspectives and dismiss them, but I wish FP would print someone who differs on this "new atheist" issue. Didn't they just publish Karen Armstrong's awful piece? What did Wright offer that was different? Although it wouldn't be very useful, I could stand hearing the same arguments if they were at least more well reasoned.

Similar to Armstrong, Wright just makes assertions without backing them up. "But the New Atheists' main short-term goal wasn't to turn believers into atheists, it was to turn atheists into New Atheists" Oh? Where and when was that decided?

Also, yes, keeping creationism out of schools is important to each of the new atheists, but what they each stress is valuing reason over faith in all cases. He misses the point; their common attitudes converge on shifting the popular notion that faith offers a useful path to knowledge. So their "goals" are bigger than any specific science versus religion fight. No worries though, Wright provides no evidence that new atheists are actually hurting the case for evolution over creationism.

Finally, can he and Armstrong just quit equating atheists with "divisive fundamentalism" or the militantly religious? Anyone who thinks that strongly criticizing unsupported beliefs is on the same level as burning girls with acid, suicide murder, or supporting, say, anti-gay legislation in Uganda which could lead to genocide should not be taken seriously. I expect more from Foreign Policy.

I suggest Robert Wright and Karen Armstrong to go on CNN and have a one hour debate with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins if they have the courage for it. This article revealed either a huge intelectual dishonesty, in the sense that it presents on purpose a series of false statements regarding the core ideas of the "New Rationalists/Atheists", or a clear misunderstanding regarding those very same ideias.

I hope all the religious people understand this once and for all. The doctrine for which people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, AC Grayling, Steven Pinker etc stand for is based on the principles of Rationalism and Humanism.

Atheism is just the rational attitude towards the lack of evidence to support the existence of a god or several gods. If you don«t have any eveidence to support the veracity of such belief then you really have no solid reason to believe it. You only have wishfull thinking.

This article rests on wild assumptions for all of its points, and none are accurate.

"But the New Atheists' main short-term goal wasn't to turn believers into atheists, it was to turn atheists into New Atheists -- fellow fire-breathing preachers of the anti-gospel. The point was to make it not just uncool to believe, but cool to ridicule believers."

Where does this come from? I have never seen Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris claim that they want other atheists to be aggressive atheists. Christopher Hitchens repeatedly stated that when he did his book tour "God is not Great", he wanted to skip New York, Chicago and the usual liberal places and tour specifically in the Bible belt. That doesn't sound like someone who is looking for atheists to push.

"If you're a Midwestern American, fighting to keep Darwin in the public schools and intelligent design out, the case you make to conservative Christians is that teaching evolution won't turn their children into atheists."

Maybe thats how this author makes the case; other rational people have a much better argument. The argument being that intelligent design is junk science masquerading as pseudo-science and does not deserve to be taught alongside an actual scientific theory like evolution (which intelligent design is not, that is, a scientific theory). I've never heard of anyone making the case against intelligent design in schools that it won't turn your kids into atheists.

"So the last thing you need is for the world's most famous teacher of evolution, Richard Dawkins,"

Dawkins is hardly thought of as the "world's most famous teacher of evolution". Thats like saying Bill Gates is the world's most famous teacher of computers. Again, this article relies on too assumptions.

Lastly, the Israeli's and Palestinians are only arguing over land because both groups claim to have a divine right to it. If they were not staking their claims to land based on religion, we would not have this conflict. Its a conflict about land, but both sides justify their claims in the name of religion.

Something which I've not heard explored in the mainstream media is the connection between the New Atheists and the evangelical apologetics which they write to discount. The past decade has seen an incredible rise in C.S. Lewis type apologetics, spearheaded by what is known in evangelical academic circles as the "Biola" school of thought (after Biola university in Southern California). The apologetic charge has been led by individuals such as Gary Habermas from Liberty University, as well as Scott Smith and William Lane Craig from Biola (Craig only a few months ago debated Christopher Hitchens publicly on campus at Biola).

These apologists have galvanized a base of evangelicals to believe that their views are not just based on faith, but can be believed through a solid base of reasoned argument and science. Even a cursory look at any of the aforementioned gentleman's CVs will make that painfully obvious. Their official philosophical and theological society, the EPS and ETS (Evangelical Philosophical and Theological Societies, respectively) seek to educate Christians on the philosophical and scientific grounds for belief in God.

The New Atheists, as I see them, are largely reactionary to these apologists. In other words, the Christians have brought it upon themselves. By inviting themselves into scientific debate over faith (as Lyotard would say, by seeking to legitimize their discourse in the eyes of science), they have brought the wall down on themselves. The residual impact of this argumentative faith impacts us at the grassroots level: parents demand creation be taught no longer simply because it is what they believe, but because they believe there is now scientific evidence supporting their position. The New Atheists are, more or less, a reactionary movement; combating these Evangelical apologists who have largely remained in the shadows of the mainstream media. Take a look at the relevant academic literature on the Christian side of the debate, and it is not difficult to see.

Reading Robert Wright one gets the impression that if Dawkins et al were to gain political power they would blow up all mosques, churches & synagogues and violently persecute the religious until they acquiesced to the doctrine of Darwin.

The truth is that the New Atheist movement is a liberal one. Under a Prime Minister Dawkins or President Harris the religious would be perfectly free to practice their beliefs, albeit as part of religious organisations that no longer enjoy special privilege but operate on a level playing field within a secular society.

«Lastly, the Israeli's and Palestinians are only arguing over land because both groups claim to have a divine right to it. If they were not staking their claims to land based on religion, we would not have this conflict. Its a conflict about land, but both sides justify their claims in the name of religion.»

What's even more stupid about that conflict is that most palestinians have israelite ancestry. They descend from jews who converted ot Islam during the arabian and turkic occupation periods. They're like pretty much like many portuguese, spanish and south americans who descend from jews who were converted by force to Christianism and gradually lost awareness of their israeli roots. A similar thing could be said about a certain amount of moroccans, egyptians, lebanese, syrians, persians and even afghan pashtuns.

If not for religion, there would be room for the current israelis and the palestinians to live as one in a single hebrew state, as both descend from the ancient israelites (even though the ashkenazim are clearly mixed with europeans). It's important that both sides become aware of their common roots and the advantages of living in a single state, marked by humanism, rationalism, secularism, liberalism and social democracy, but also a state with an israelite cultural identity, which is quite diverse and is based in 3 main subcultures: ashkenazi, sephardi and mizrahi (in which the palestinians and other middle eastern communities of israelite descendance should be fit in) .

Some of the advantages are obvious: 1) peace and union between both sides; 3) a much better educational for both; 2) a larger population; 3) a larger territory and bigger amount of natural resources for both; 4) a much stronger and more solid economy; 3) a better chance of being part of a possible Euro-Asian Union; and 5) the possibility of influencing in cultural and political terms other neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and even Iran by setting a good example of what a modern middle eastern country should be like.

Now, all of this requires a process of cultural conversion based on the principles of rationalism and humanism and the correct knowdege of History and thereofre it requires as well that both sides quit religion, which is based on mythological beliefs and an ambiguous moral code that can very well be used to lead people into violence and segregation.

If I understand Robert Wright correctly he wants me to either hide my atheism or just not exist at all because my existence as an atheist make it hard politically to teach evolution in schools. That's very interesting. Robert Wright also abandoned his faith because of Darwinism. the problem here is the Robert Wright has a ridiculous high bar for what religious tolerance requires. He doesn't just think that you need to respect people's rights to believe what they want. Nor does he just think that you should treat religious people kindly. He thinks that any evangelism of atheism is unacceptable. Does he feel the same way about Christian evangelism? Maybe. He seems to think that any belief that your religion/atheism should become universal is a danger to mankind. It doesn't appear to matter to him whether you commit to purely peaceful means or whether you agree not to enlist government in your cause. Maybe Robert Wright would like to clarify this.

I agree. Atheists need many new voices. The fact that apologists criticize and call them "new atheists" means that their voices are working.

Keep it up!

If I am reading the piece's argument correctly, it boils down to this: to be able to successfully fulfill our foreign policy goals of peace and security for all (Assuming these are in fact are our goals.) we need to be religious like the fundamentalist muslims who are our rivals, not atheist. I have news for you: Besides the fact that two wrongs do not lead to a right, the fundamentlist muslims are going to label us as godless, non-believers whatever we do. Rejecting atheism because we want to pursue foreign policy objectives is also a dumb idea because the only way to arrive at foreign policy objectives that are worth achieving is to think, act, and subsribe to atheism. Rely on evidence. Pursue ethical conduct. Do not follow people just because they claim authority. Seek truth, knowledge, and the good. Being religious does not help any of those things. By the way, Karen Armstrong's argument is a cop out.

«If most of these commenters were actually FP readers and not a bunch of enraged atheists who only signed up on this site to post comments about Armstrong & Wright, maybe they would know that.»

And you know that because you're an omniscient being. Right? Please, give me a break.

There's no way i would ever aprove teaching divine creationism in schools (specialy in science classes) because it's never been proven to be true. On the contrary, all evidence points to evolutionism, not divine creationism. Besides, the simple notion of a god that is simultaneoulsy omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent goes against the rules of logic. It constitutes an obvious paradox and it also poses a lot of moral questions if accepted as true.

If you keep teaching the american children to be ignorant America won't have a bright future. Stick to religion like that and you'll end up like the present islamic world.

Why is it when someone says they don't believe in the water fluoridation there's a discussion based on the merits of an idea, but when we apply the same kind of reasoning to religion, atheists are being "aggressive fundamentalists" no better than the fundies whose ideas we examine?

The problem is that for some number of human lifetimes religion has held a privileged position of being beyond criticism.

Richard Dawkins is no more "aggressive" in his approach than most academics. He just applies the same scrutiny to the virgin birth as he would to punctuated equilibrium.

The problem is that only a scientist rejoices when a sacred cow is proved to be something else. Religionists base so much of their identities on their religions that changing their mind about the primacy of their faith means they have to become different people.

Comparing the so called "new" atheists to fundamentalists like Falwell or any one of a dozen raging anti-western Imams, is both unfair and inaccurate.

As far as calling any of this "new" - has no one read Ingersoll? D.H. Lawrence? Jefferson, Madison, Bertrand Russell?

The only thing that makes Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens new is the fact the're publishing now and they're popular. FP would serve it's readers better if it hired writers who know what their talking about.

«Um, evidence? Most Jews fled Israel in the wake of the Roman wars of AD 66-70. A tiny remnant remained to survive the Romans, the Crusaders, the Ottomans and the Brits; there has in fact been a continuous Jewish presence in the place from antiquity, though by the time Zionist Jews began arriving from Europe in the late 19th century, the indigenous Jews were a decided minority. I know of no evidence that claims modern Palestinians are ethnically distinct from other Arab populations, much less that they are of predominantly Jewish ancestry»
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Lieberman,

Actually it is you who has to provide evidence to support the claim that most jews left Israel after their war against the romans. Israelite emigration began much before that. It began with the assyrian invasions and it continued afterwards with the babylonian, persian and greek invasions. During this period many of them fled to North Africa and reached Portugal and Spain, while other moved eastwards, reaching Iran and Afghanistan (where you still find many pashtun tribes with israelite names, despite being muslims).

It's also important to bare in mind that were a lot of conversions to Judaism in the Roman Empire before the rise of Christianism. That partially explains why in DNA studies it has been detected a significant presence (around 25%-30%)of typical european male genetic markers, namely R1b, among the modern sephardi jews (new christians not included). This genetic marker is quiet common in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Britain but it can also be found with a significant frequency in Armenia (35%), Turkey (17%), Syria (11%), Lebanon (7%), Kurdistan (11%), Azerbaijan (37%) , Iran (9%), Turkmenistan (40%).
Because of it's high frequency in Armenia and Azerbaijan its plausible to assume that the presence o R1b can also be a result of the genetic contribution from the hitites and the hurrians who stablished themselves in Canaan, long before the Israel emerged as nation.

As for what concerns ashkenazi jews, genetic studies have revealed that they male ashkenazis are more or less smilar in terms of Y-DNA, except that instead of R1b, it's been detected a higher proportion of genetic marker R1a, which is more common among slvic populations. This could very well be a contribution from the khazars that converted to Judaism, but it may also result from a much prior admixture with northeastern persians (who also possess this genetic marker in a significant frequency).

In any case, the main male genetic markers for sephardi and ashkenazi jews are J1, J2 and E1b1b, which combined together represent around 70-75% of their male lineages.
These three genetic markers are the most common among middle eastern population.
E1b1b is quiet frequent in North Africa and some Balkan regions (such as Macedonia), while J1 is mostly found in the Arabian Penisula. Genetic marker J2, on the other hand has its highest frequencies in places like Italy, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.

This gives us the impression that the ashkenazi jews should have a more middle eastern look? Right? Well, the things is that, unlike mizrahi and sephardi jews, a huge proportion (50-60%) of their female lineages has typical european genetic markers. This suggests that in the past there was for some time a huge admixture between male israelites and european females. That process was probably constrained later due to religious opression and segregation.

I guess if we grab a group of male arabs and isolate them with a group of russian women and some russian men for one thousand years, their late descendants will probably look similar to modern ashkenazi. Genetic isolation will probably lead as well to specific genetic diseases.

Anyways, these studies have also revealed similar genetic mutations between jews, palestinians and lebanese carrying J1 and J2 haplogroups which leads us to assume that they share common ancestors.

As if that was not enough, some israeli shcollar have been studing muslim palestinians who practice Judaism in secret or are aware of their jewish/israeli roots.

Here's an extract of a documentary with geneticist Ariella Oppenheimer about the israelite/canaanite roots of the palestinians.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPRgXAYTQlU

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPkLWlylISM

This is why i say it's time to put the Torah and the Quran behind and focus on Humanism and Rationalism. What we have here is basically a civil war between israelites (quiet mixed with europeans) who preserved their ancient culture and religion, and israelites who were forced by different means to adopt a new culture and religion during the arabian and turkic occupation periods.

A similar thing be said about about many israelite families in other islamic countries such as Iran and Afghanistan. Hope you get my point.