The "New Atheists" on podcast

This month's podcast from Institute of Humanist Studies' Humanist Network News features the "New Atheist" gang talking about organised freethought in the wake of Sam Harris's comments on the word "atheist" at the Atheist Alliance International conference. There's interviews with Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett.

Daily Mail attacks humanist MP

Well, here's the Daily Mail at its despicable best. Out of nowhere the paper's launched a stunning attack on Liberal Democract MP and prominent secularist Dr Evan Harris, dubbing him "Dr Death" for his support of stem cell research (or in Daily Mail-speak, "embryo experiments"), euthanasia and abortion rights.

Of course, the Daily Mail wouldn't stop at that. They also launch into him for his support of the National Secular Society - "Though of Jewish origin, he is an aggressive secularist, serving on the council of the National Secular Society and attacking anyone - particularly Christians - who allows their faith to influence their attitude towards abortion."

But why stop there? Why not attack Dr Harris personally? Why not hint at a link between Harris's support for abortion rights and the fact that his girlfriend works as press manager for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which provides abortion services.

As if that's not enough, it turns out Harris is also "a difficult loner", "awkward", "charmless", "eccentric", a "nerd", and he lacks "humour" and "social grace".

Unbelievable. Let's just hope Dr Harris takes being attacked by the Mail as a compliment.

Amis vs Morris

Padraig Reidy over at Index on Censorship reports on an unlikely little spat that occurred last night between the novelist Martin Amis and the satirist Chris Morris. Amis was appearing alongside the journalist Andrew Anthony at the ICA to discuss the dangers of Islamism, but it was when the floor opened up to questions that things got really interested. Morris weighs in with some arguments of questionable quality – I'll hand you over to Padraig to relay the tale of this heavyweight bout.

Sam Harris responds to critics

Sam Harris has responded to critics of the speech he delivered to last week's Atheist Alliance, clarifying his assertion that non-believers should stop describing themselves as "atheists". Writing on his website, Harris restates his point that "the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause" and may put off non-believers who "have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics".

Expanding on his use of the word "cult", Harris makes an interesting point about the nature of the "New Atheism": "There is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety".

It's a stark warning, unlikely to endear Harris further to his critics. But I think he's right. When we ran our recent poll asking whether Dawkins and Hitchens are good for humanism, some of the comments we received displayed a "thou shalt not criticise Dawkins" mentality. One of the favourite points used by critics of the "New Atheism" is that it is dogmatic, and at times it seems like some atheists are playing into their hands.

Don't forget to vote in our latest poll on whether Harris is right - see the top right of this page.

Why can't this be true?

In reporting yesterday that the actress Carly Pope would be appearing in the hit US TV show 24, Yahoo made a fantastic mistake and ran the story alongside a photo of Pope Benedict XVI. Naturally this, erm, cardinal error was quickly rectified, but just imagine if it was true. I bet the Pope could get those pesky terrorists to confess without the need for any of Jack Bauer's strong-arm torture tactics.

I really couldn't resist doing one of those "how it might look" mock-ups for this...

Laurie Taylor on Radio Four discussing ghosts and witchcraft

As many of you will know, our commissioning editor Laurie Taylor presents a weekly show on Radio Four – Thinking Allowed. Today's show (4pm) should appeal directly to New Humanist readers, as he'll be talking to social historian Owen Davis, who has written extensively about witchcraft and magic and whose latest book The Haunted focuses on the social history of ghosts.

New Humanist poll: Is Sam Harris right to reject labels like "Atheist" and "Humanist"?

Following Sam Harris's speech to last week's Atheist Alliance International Conference in Virginia, our new opinion poll asks whether he was right to suggest that non-believers should discard the word "atheist", along with other labels such as "humanist", "secular humanist", "rationalist", "naturalist", "sceptic" and so on.

Harris argued that there is no need for the godless to define themselves by something they don't believe in, saying: "atheist is a term we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology". He even goes so far as to say that using the term "atheist" could be counter-productive, running the risk of "squander[ing] the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues." Instead of forming organised groups under these labels, Harris suggests non-believers "should not call ourselves anything. . . We should go under the radar - for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."

This stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by Richard Dawkins, particularly his US-based "Out Campaign", which encourages non-believers to "come out" and express their lack of faith by wearing t-shirts emblazoned with a giant letter "A" for "Atheist".

Let us know what you think by voting in the poll in the top right corner of this page? Do you agree with Harris in his rejection of these labels, or is it essential that atheists unite under a common label in order to take on the might of organised religion?

Once you've voted, please feel free to expand on your views by commenting on this post. If you're new to our site and blog, stay and have a browse around the main New Humanist site. There's articles from the past 8 years, and you can also sign up for a FREE trial copy.

New Humanist editor: How should we brand non-belief?

Our editor Caspar Melville posted on the Guardian's "Comment is Free" site late last week with a piece on Sam Harris's suggestion that atheists should ditch the term "atheist", along with the endless list of other labels the godless tend to employ - "humanist", "secular humanists", "rationalists", "brights" and so on.

Harris's words stand in stark contrast to Richard Dawkins' US-based "Out Campaign", aimed at encouraging atheists to "come out" and admit their non-belief, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with a big red "A" for Atheist. Dawkins was in the audience for Harris's speech to the Atheists Alliance International Conference, and afterwards said he was still thinking about his reaction to it. On Comment is Free our editor jokingly suggests he may be considering rebranding his "Out Campaign", and asks what "A" stands for if it no longer stands for "Atheist"? Needless to say Comment is Free's readers have weighed in with their suggestions. Take a look, it's all good fun.

Chat with God, he's great

For anyone out there with too much time on their hands, here's something to have a little fun with. You can now talk live to God in an automated internet chat room. I had a natter with him and to be honest he's a bloody nice bloke. Told me his hobbies are "robots, computers and chatting online". Nice to know he keeps himself busy up there.

[Cheers Christina]

Our survey says...

In lieu of any real poll in the near future, the British electorate can take great comfort in the fact that our survey on whether Dawkins and Hitchens are good for humanism is now closed and the results are in.

The Returning Officer (i.e. Blogger via myself) is pleased to announce that from a staggeringly high turnout of 5,350 people, the responses to the question "Are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens a good thing for humanism?" came in as follows:

Yes, it's time to get serious in our rejection of religion – 4,186 (78%)

Yes, they enliven the debate – 943 (17%)

No, their aggressive tone is unhelpful – 186 (3%)

No, they're a menace to humanism – 35 (0%)

So what does it all mean? No doubt pollsters will be debating this result for months on end, but in the meantime I'll offer one obvious observation – Dawkins and the Hitch have whipped up a real following, many of whom will passionately jump at the opportunity to defend them. Some will even take offence at any attempt to question their writings – just take a look at the many comments we received about this poll. What do readers think? Leave us your comments on this post.

Watch out for our next poll, launching later today...

To the power of ten

I remember seeing this on TV when I was a kid and it blew my mind, still does. What I didn't know then was that it was made by Charles and Ray Eames, the famous designers. So trippy. So seventies. So cool, man.

"We should not call ourselves athiests" - Sam Harris

... the plot thickens. Just as Dawkins' launches his campaign to reclaim atheism, Sam Harris, another of the so-called New Atheists, appalls the Atheist Alliance International Conference audience with the "seditious proposal" that labels like atheist, secularist, humanist and sceptic are counter-productive and should be scrapped: "We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar - for the rest of our lives. And while there we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them." Perhaps he's going to start an in" campaign? Also in the audience that night was Dawkins himself who reportedly said "I think he was making a very interesting point, and I'm still thinking about my reaction to it."

This comes courtesy of our friends at Humanist Network News. read Duncan Crary's report, and listen out for their next podcast which will features interviews with Harris, Hitch, Dennett and Dawkins. The Washington Post have published and edited extract of Harris' talk, which has received 333 comments so far. We love a good fight we... um... humans.

What does 'A' stand for...?

Well, what do we think of Richard Dawkins' Out campaign, encouraging atheists to be out, loud and proud about what they don't believe in (Guardian write-up here)? Judging by the response to the poll on the right I guess a lot of you agree it's a good idea. I'm not so sure, being a committed Marxist, Grouch that is, I have an aversion to joining clubs of any kind, and an even stronger one to T-Shirts with slogans. I'll keep you appraised of the discussion about it, first up Norman Geras who detects a certain... ahem... evangelism in the whole thing. Let us know what you think in the comment section.

The 'mental' in fundamentalism

A fascinating piece in Tikkun magazine argues that the inability to do "divergent" thinking - the kind of non-linear creative thinking which, in Salman Rushdie's phrase "allows newness to enter the world" - might be down to the lack of development of the sophisticated frontal lobe area of the brain. They cite some interesting evidence and ask some good questions like: "Do extremism and an unconditional adherence to religious dogma result from a failure of a portion of the frontal lobe to develop, or fully developed, to activate?" Shades of biological essentialism in the conclusion that fundamentalism has a biological explanation, perhaps, but ... it makes ya think (with the frontal lobes, obviously).