This essay intends to examine the atheists Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray's arguments against religion, based on the themes of religion, atheism and the perception.of their present worldview. In addition, the research aims to find out whether it is suitable to talk about a new atheism. And, if so, whether such newatheism correspond with the definition represented by the Christian critics. The essay intends to contribute to a very limited research on the so-called new atheism without applying pro-religious arguments. Previous research and theory highlight the problem of defining the terms atheism, religion and secularism a concern that is reflected by the five critics troughout their arguments. What really united the critics were the idea about religion taking too much place in society, and the opinion that atheistic morality is at least as good as religious morality. In addition, the authors agree that religion is not needed to maintain good morale, on the contrary, religion affect the morale negatively. They also assumed that religion restricts people and and that moderate religion more or less leads to, or is responsible for, fundamentalism. Also, the value of truth and contempt against relativism brought the authors together, although they were sometimes justified by very different arguments. Crucially, however, are the differences in their definitions of religion, both concerning their focus on substantive and functional definitions, the relationship between absolute, relative-, and private religion and their political focus. To regard these authors' arguments as a new atheism is thus hard to justify. The results conclude that both the Christian critics and the five critics of religion generalize their opponents view of atheism or religion, and also fail to define themselves in order to be able to unite as a group against the other.

Upplysningen var en period av radikala förändringar. Religion, vetenskap och politik influerades under denna period av de vetenskapliga framgångar som gjordes under 1600-talets vetenskapliga revolution tack vare bland annat Galileo och Kopernikus. Trots att upplysningens påverkan inte begränsades till enbart vetenskap och filosofi utan även religion finns det en etablerad definition av upplysningen som icke-religiös. Christopher Hitchens och John Gray är båda ateister men har markanta meningsskiljaktigheter när det kommer till upplysningen och deras tankar om periodens främsta representanter. Hitchens tillskriver upplysningen ideal som förnuft, framgång och en ärlig intellektuell strävan medan Gray menar att upplysningen var en era av blind hängivelse till förnuft och vetenskap som ersatte den monoteistiska guden. Han menar även att upplysningens tendens att intellektualisera och legitimera rasism genom att inkorporera den i vetenskap har lett till moderna rasistiska ideologier. Även om dessa perspektiv skiljer sig i hur de beskriver upplysningen och deras främsta tänkare är Grays analys mer historisk och även fri från en form av ytlig romantisering som Hitchens gör sig skyldig till. En granskning av utdrag ur verk från Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza och David Hume gör det svårt att känna samma vördnad för dem som Hitchens gör och legitimerar Grays beskrivning av eran som fylld av rasism, kolonialism och intellektuellt förtryck av allt som inte var europeiskt.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze the ideology of the cultural phenomenon, that is as political as it is controversial, the new atheism. By studying the ideas and values of four prominent new atheists, commonly referred to as the ‘four horsemen of the new atheism’, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, this study aims to, in some ways challenge, and in others, nuance, the categorization of the movement. Its adherents have often been labeled as, for example: ‘secular fundamentalists’, ‘evangelical’ and ‘radical secularists’. None of these designations are inherently wrong. But I think there is a more fitting term available: ‘societal secular maximalist’. This term is a modified version of ‘religious maximalism’, coined by the historian of religion at the University of Chicago, Bruce Lincoln. I argue that the new atheist ideology is not fundamentalistic because it admits fallibility if another theory where to disprove it within its own scientific discourse. Considering this fact, it does not hold is central ideological feature, most commonly a Darwinist theory of evolution, as absolute. Due to this, and some other factors, I argue that the societal secular maximalist categorization is more fitting because the scientific and humanistic views of the ‘four horsemen’ lay claim to all aspects of human existence, private and public, emotional, and factual along with the morals, ethics and aesthetics of our societies.

This diploma work analyzes the contemporary rise of the number of atheists in the United States of America, basing this presupposition on numerous nation-wide surveys, primarily conducted by Gallup Poll and Pew Research Center. It goes into depth on the definition of atheism and strictly delineates the meaning of this word and the use of its alternatives in the work. Given the fact that the thesis is written by a Czech author, it also provides necessary background covering the differences between Czech atheism and American atheism. Since the work is purposely not one of literary analysis but rather of socio-political and cultural nature, reasons for this decision are given in a separate subchapter analyzing Flannery O'Connor's novel Wise Blood. History of atheism in America is touched upon in the beginning of Chapter 3, but since the fundamental focus of this work is on the contemporary state of affairs, the roots of modern atheism in America are sought after mainly in the twentieth century. In particular, the greatest causes of the weakening of church's power and the rise of secularism (or atheism, for that matter) are given as following: Madalyn Murray O'Hair's fights against church's influence in public schools and against its public funding; the argument about the non-scientific nature of belief...