![\"Atheist](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/nuovo_ateismo_fallimento.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A few days ago it was Atheist Day<\/strong><\/mark>: here are 5 reasons why the “New Atheism”<\/strong> movement died a natural death.<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n A few days ago, on March 23, “Atheist Day”<\/i><\/strong> was celebrated, to affirm the freedom not to believe.<\/p>\n On this occasion, we ask a question: what went wrong for the champions of “New Atheism”<\/strong><\/mark>?<\/p>\n We are referring to the titanic intellectuals<\/strong> who for a decade pursued the greatest goal\u2014after the Soviet one\u2014of establishing a social culture radically devoid of God<\/strong>, turning irreligion into an aggressive and dogmatic fundamentalism.<\/p>\n The main figures were Richard Dawkins<\/strong>, Sam Harris<\/strong>, Daniel Dennett<\/strong>, Christopher Hitchens<\/strong>, Jerry Coyne, Michael Onfray, Michael Shermer, and PZ Myers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Numerous observers have tried<\/a><\/em><\/b><\/u> to explain the astonishing failure of new atheism<\/i>, despite a society that was intellectually lazy<\/strong>, affluent, and consumerist, and that agreed with them<\/strong> on everything: the supposed anachronism of religious thought, the bigotry of moral judgments, the violence generated by religions, and the unhealthy mixing of politics and religion.<\/p>\n And yet, as the rationalist Scott Alexander<\/strong> observed<\/a><\/em><\/b><\/u>, \u201cin the bubble where no one believes in God anymore and everyone is fully concerned with sexual minorities and Trump, it is less painful<\/strong> to be a Catholic than a fan of Dawkins.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n Indeed, Alexander continues, only in the case of “New Atheism”<\/i>, \u201cmodern progressive culture turned toward the \u2018new atheists\u2019 and, seeing itself, said: \u2018This is truly stupid and annoying<\/strong>.\u2019\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n UCCR<\/strong> was born precisely during the years of fame of the \u201cnew atheists,\u201d out of the need to provide a tool<\/strong> for believers \u201csurrounded\u201d by opinion-makers, intellectuals, and journalists. We followed the evolution of the phenomenon and its deflation, despite predictions that it would dominate the scene.<\/p>\n Having familiarity<\/strong> with the topic, we suggest five decisive factors<\/mark><\/strong> to explain the disastrous end of \u201cNew Atheism.\u201d<\/p>\n Stay updated by subscribing<\/strong> to our new channels:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It may seem incredible, but former U.S. President Barack Obama<\/b> delivered the first major blow to the \u201cnew atheists.\u201d<\/p>\n First of all, his election removed the \u201ccommon enemy\u201d<\/strong> that had ensured unity within the movement.<\/p>\n Before 2008, the glue binding activists was the much-hated conservative George W. Bush<\/strong>. Biologist PZ Myers<\/strong> and Richard Dawkins<\/strong> (today bitter enemies) appeared together publicly to oppose Bush and became idols<\/strong> celebrated by the progressive establishment.<\/p>\n Secondly, the Obama administration\u2014supported by major media and cultural circles\u2014pulled the rug out from under them: it reshaped American (and thus Western) culture by making criticism of Islam<\/strong> politically incorrect<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In fact, \u201cNew Atheism\u201d emerged in the aftermath of September 11<\/strong>, and for years Islam was the preferred tool for generalizing about religious violence.<\/p>\n Under Obama, however, it became a minefield<\/strong>, and the first to step on it were<\/a><\/em><\/b><\/u> two leading figures, Sam Harris<\/b> and Michael Onfray<\/strong>, who began to be viewed negatively and portrayed as racists even by progressive media.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n After the publication of his bestseller “The God Delusion”<\/i><\/strong> (2006), Dawkins, together with the other \u201chorsemen,\u201d began to denigrate<\/strong> agnostics and \u201cmoderate atheists,\u201d accusing them of tolerating religious opinions and refusing to take sides.<\/p>\n Over time, the entire academic world was accused of cowardice<\/strong> for not joining the attack on religion. One example was Coyne\u2019s media campaign against the agnostic historian Bart D. Ehrman<\/strong>, author of works defending the historicity of Christ.<\/p>\n Another emblematic case was the media pressure by Sam Harris<\/strong> in the New York Times<\/i><\/a><\/strong><\/u><\/em> and against the scientific community to prevent the Christian geneticist Francis Collins<\/strong> from remaining head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).<\/p>\n The attempt of \u201cNew Atheism\u201d to enter and influence the academic world<\/strong> was explicitly stated at the 2006 Beyond Belief<\/i> conference.<\/p>\n But the resounding failure<\/strong> was confirmed by the deep embarrassment expressed by non-believing academics themselves. For example, Nobel laureate Peter Higgs<\/strong> stated: \u201cThe problem with Dawkins is that he focuses his attacks on fundamentalists, but clearly not all believers<\/strong> are like that. In this sense, I think Dawkins\u2019 attitude is fundamentalist, from the opposite side.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n Having lost the academic world, all their visibility depended entirely on media support<\/strong>, which gradually began to crumble, as seen above.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Another reason for the decline of \u201cNew Atheism\u201d lies in the entry into the debate<\/strong> of various Christian scientists, philosophers, and thinkers.<\/p>\n A new generation of believing intellectuals succeeded in presenting reasonable arguments<\/strong> in support of faith, showing that the “New Atheists”<\/i> spent much of their time constructing straw-man arguments<\/strong> about religion, only to knock them down.<\/p>\n In his books, for example, Richard Dawkins<\/strong> strongly opposed a god that no one has ever believed in: the famous \u201cgod of the gaps\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Some of these Christian intellectuals engaged directly with \u201cNew Atheism\u201d by publishing books explicitly opposed<\/strong> to it, catching irreligious activists off guard. Among them:<\/p>\n More briefly, we also mention philosophers Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Robert Spaemann, Roger Trigg, Richard Swinburne, and Richard Schroder; physicists Gerald Schroeder, John Polkinghorne, and Russell Stannard; and sociologist Rodney Stark.<\/p>\n Finally, significant impact came from the surprising conversion to deism in 2005 of the \u201cmost famous atheist in the world,\u201d philosopher of science Antony Flew<\/strong>, once a mentor of Dawkins.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In 2011, a minor dispute about the behavior of participants at an atheist convention<\/strong> became known as \u201celevatorgate\u201d<\/strong> and sparked the first major internal feud<\/strong> among irreligious activists online.<\/p>\n Feminist Rebecca Watson was sexually harassed in an elevator and publicly reported it, but was rebuked by leaders of “New Atheism”<\/i> for risking negative publicity<\/strong> for their movement.<\/p>\n This episode marked the beginning of a break<\/strong> between the movement and feminism.<\/p>\n The situation worsened when Richard Dawkins<\/strong> made sexist remarks about the victim, hosted on the blog of PZ Myers<\/strong>. The community split between feminists and Dawkins supporters.<\/p>\n At that point, PZ Myers<\/strong> turned against Dawkins, labeling him racist and Islamophobic, alongside Sam Harris<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The media amplified everything and even named Dawkins among the worst misogynists<\/strong> of the year\u2014a devastating blow to the movement.<\/p>\n Gradually, more commentators began to turn against the \u201cpriests of atheism\u201d<\/strong>. Biologist Jerry Coyne<\/strong> tried for a time to defend Dawkins and Harris but eventually burned out. Today, much of his blog focuses on cats.<\/p>\n Finally, the premature death of Christopher Hitchens<\/strong> in 2011 further weakened the movement.<\/p>\n The elevatorgate<\/em> scandal was a fatal crack that led to the implosion<\/strong> of the movement, later amplified by the recent discovery<\/a><\/u><\/b><\/i> that its leaders remained linked to financier Jeffrey Epstein<\/strong> even after his conviction.<\/p>\n Today the community is fragmented into a free-for-all<\/i>, also divided over gender issues<\/strong>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The creator himself turned out to be the worst cause<\/strong> of his creation\u2019s demise.<\/p>\n Richard Dawkins<\/strong> was the most prominent figure, a YouTube celebrity and tireless preacher. After \u201celevatorgate,\u201d however, he became a target<\/strong> of internal criticism.<\/p>\n His downfall, however, came with social media\u2014especially Twitter<\/strong>. Without editorial filtering, the zoologist revealed aspects of himself that had previously remained hidden.<\/p>\n With nearly a million followers, his sexist and racist remarks, his defense<\/a><\/em><\/b><\/u> of \u201cmild pedophilia\u201d<\/strong>, encouragement of infidelity, and criticism<\/a><\/em><\/b><\/u> of mothers who give birth to children with Down syndrome did not go unnoticed.<\/p>\n For years he has become a mockery online<\/strong>, especially after opposing the transgender movement.<\/p>\n According to Vice<\/i>, \u201che has dishonored atheism\u201d<\/i>. His books have flopped, and even his most important scientific theory, the \u201cselfish gene\u201d<\/strong>, has been challenged by physiologist Denis Noble<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In recent years, Dawkins has tried to regain ground, first calling himself \u201cagnostic\u201d<\/strong>, then even a \u201ccultural Christian.\u201d<\/strong> In 2015, he even defended the presence of the Lord\u2019s Prayer in UK cinemas.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Primatologist Frans De Waal<\/b> accused the \u201cnew atheists\u201d of being \u201cobsessed<\/strong> with the non-existence of God, going on media campaigns, wearing T-shirts proclaiming their lack of faith, and calling for militant atheism.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n But he also asked: \u201cWhat does atheism have to offer<\/strong> that is worth fighting for in this way?\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n This is the question<\/strong> that remains. Defining oneself as \u201canti-\u201d allows only limited survival; without offering meaningful answers<\/strong> to life\u2019s meaning, failure is inevitable.<\/p>\n Philosopher Philippe Nemo<\/strong> wrote a remarkable epitaph for \u201cNew Atheism,\u201d which we reproduce in full:<\/p>\n \u201cDespite attempts to eradicate Christianity, atheism has died a natural death<\/strong>; it was not killed, since the modern world has given\u2014and continues to give\u2014it every opportunity to defend its cause and offer humanity new reasons for living. Opportunities wasted<\/strong>, because it failed to keep its promises, did not fulfill the intellectual programs that constituted its only attraction, and did not succeed in showing that man is less miserable without God than with God.\u201d<\/i>1<\/a><\/sup>P. Nemo<\/b>, The Beautiful Death of Modern Atheism<\/i>, Rubbettino 2016, pp. 5\u20136<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nWhy did New Atheism fail?<\/h2>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/whatsapp.png\")
<\/a> ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/telegram.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n1) The election of Obama<\/h2>\n
2) Rejection by the academic world<\/h2>\n
3) The response of believing intellectuals<\/h3>\n
\n
4) The \u201celevatorgate\u201d scandal<\/h2>\n
5) Richard Dawkins<\/h2>\n
The natural death of New Atheism<\/h2>\n
\n