The choice of this video to make a response to was fairly arbitrary. There have been some well publicized “conversions” in recent months and this kind of sentiment now makes a regular appearance. I’m not going through every point Mr Horn makes. (As far as I know Trent Horn has no formal Clerical position in Mother Church and I detest our contemporary phony social familiarity so “Mr” it is. I was raised in a culture of traditional courtesy. You did not call someone by their first name until you were properly introduced and even then only after a certain relationship had developed.) But I do want to point out some stuff that he conveniently forgot.

Firstly, “New Atheism” didn’t “die” because it never lived as apologists imagine. None of the persons associated with it ever used the term or saw themselves as part of a movement. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett repeatedly pointed out that their own views were nothing new. What they did, and what their crime consisted of, was writing books. What made them different and what truly terrified the pious is that they found a wide audience. All these folks wrote bestsellers. Dawkins’ book sold 2 million copies in hardback. Now if you know something about the publishing industry you’ll understand what is astounding here. Most hardbacks on the New York Times bestseller list sell between 5,000 and 10,000 copies. Think about that. “New Atheism” was the shallow journalistic label for this popular success. Of course these folks took the platform provided by this literary output and used to it varying degrees of benefit.

Secondly, while Mr Horn is correct in placing NA in the context of the response to the attack on 9/11 he leaves out something very important. The domestic US situation. Sure, the attack highlighted Islamic fanaticism but he forgets a US President who claimed to receive instructions from the Almighty, including a misbegotten invasion of Iraq, whose aftershocks rumble even today. Then there was the growth of reactionary conservative social policy that also plays out even now. Then there was the revelation of malfeasance among religious organizations. Doubtless Mr Horn still thinks the Roman Catholic Church has some sort of moral authority. But even now, twenty years later, we are still regularly presented with stories about the continuing corruption of his Church in enabling and covering up child abuse. (Pope Francis’ job seemed to be to put on a Happy Mask and change the subject. In this he was very successful.)

Then, Mr Horn refers to a “resurgence” of Christian apologetics. He forgets to mention that this resurgence owes its life almost completely to the success of NA. The apologetics industry was conceived as a reaction to a perceived threat. And if NA is dead, what of apologetics? Has anyone spent any time listening to these folks? Watch some of Mr Horm’s videos. Sheesh.

“New Atheism” didn’t die, it mainstreamed. Those four gentlemen started a public conversation that needed to be had and continues to this day. Mr Horn breathes a sigh of relief at the idea that the public decline of religion has “bottomed out”. But what kind of victory has it been? It survives by hitching itself to reactionary political and social forces that are clearly using it to manipulate a large portion of the electorate who seem to love the fetus and hate the rest of the human race, except for the very rich. Mr Horm is content to have people convert not because of sincere belief but because they think it is “good for society”. Mr Horn is content to have his bigoted, misogynist social views spread at gunpoint, a clear acknowledgement that his church cannot convince people through argument.

The demographics are in however. The least religious group in our society is young people who aren’t becoming atheists but simply don’t make religion an important part of their lives. Our society is aging. But when the last of the baby boomers pass away in the next decade or so the bottom will fall out. Mr Horn may laugh while he can but ultimately he is simply whistling past the grave yard.