Why did New Atheism fail?
Introduction
New Atheism – the loosely-organised, mid-2000s movement led by writers such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett – no longer shapes public debate the way it did at its peak. Its decline is not the same as a religious revival; rather, the movement exhausted its distinctive cultural role and fractured for several overlapping reasons. The main explanations offered in recent commentary can be grouped into three broad themes. [1][2]
1. Cultural victory and mission exhaustion
By the late 2010s open disbelief in God had become “so normal that it no longer felt rebellious” [1]. Legal and social battles that had animated New Atheism – evolution in schools, opposition to creationism, criticism of fundamentalist politics – were either won or lost interest among younger liberals. As surveys kept showing a steady rise of the religiously unaffiliated (“nones”), many erstwhile activists felt their basic goal was already being met and moved on to other causes [3].
2. The culture war moved on
Scott Alexander argues that the culture-war axis pivoted from “science vs. faith” to “social justice vs. anti-woke” around 2013–2016; the same people who once argued about God now argued about race, gender and speech norms [1]. This new alignment split New Atheists: some adopted progressive social-justice frames, others turned to free-speech or anti-Islamist positions and were labelled reactionary, dissolving the previous coalition. Online platforms amplified the split; sceptic YouTube channels and atheist blogs either re-branded into anti-SJ content or lost traffic to newer media ecosystems.
3. Absence of a positive social vision
A recurring self-critique from former participants is that New Atheism excelled at deconstruction but offered little in the way of community, ritual or shared moral narrative [2]. Religious traditions, even when doubted, still supply belonging, life-cycle ceremonies and moral language; many former activists drifted toward humanism, political activism or even liturgical churches to fill that gap. The movement’s most visible spokespeople were celebrity authors rather than institutions, so there was no durable structure once public attention waned.
Public discourse after the decline
Although the label “New Atheist” is rarely used today, its legacy persists:
The proportion of Americans identifying as atheist or agnostic continues to rise [3]. Arguments about science, evolution and secularism have been absorbed into mainstream liberal culture and no longer define a separate movement. Former New Atheist networks contributed talent to both the rationalist community and various free-speech organisations, while others emphasise spirituality or ritual without traditional theism.
Conclusion
New Atheism failed not because it lost every argument but because it outlived its own moment. Once disbelief became commonplace, and the culture war shifted to identity politics, the coalition lost a unifying enemy and revealed its internal disagreements. Without institutions to hold it together or a positive vision to replace religion’s social functions, the movement dispersed into today’s more fragmented intellectual landscape. [1][2][4]
Sources
- Scott Alexander, “New Atheism: The Godlessness That Failed,” Slate Star Codex, 30 Oct 2019. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
- “Confessions of a Recovering Atheist,” UnHerd, 2 Apr 2025. https://unherd.com/2025/04/confessions-of-a-recovering-atheist/
(Emphasises loss of community and moral narrative; partially disagrees with Alexander’s focus on culture-war realignment.)
- Pew Research Center, “Modeling the Future of Religion in America,” 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org
- Kwame Anthony Appiah, “What Happened to New Atheism?” The New York Times Magazine, 13 Nov 2021. https://www.nytimes.com