In defense of "unsophisticed", impassioned atheists

I read this piece by Chris Mooney on Discover's website where he, in responding to Jerry Coyne, made some comments I don't quite agree with. To me, I sense a sort of weariness. He admits a certain motivation back in 2001, due largely to 9/11, in challenging religion but now wishes to change gears and work towards "common solutions" and engage in "liberal tolerance".

I also have a problem with one of the commenter's expansion on Chris' characterization of challenging religion as "flailing indiscriminately". You ever get the sense that eggheads are completely out of touch with reality, out of touch with the majority of society who are certainly not eggheads? Well I certainly think so. There are many fronts in the war challenging religion. The sophisticated, purely intellectual front has it's merits certainly, but to suggest both that that's the only way to do it and that any other way is some counter productive, uncontrolled "flailing" is a mistake and evident of a lack of perspective outside their own tiny little sphere.

I don't entirely see the problem with less genteel objections to religion. As someone who delights in intellectually challenging argumentation and philosophical discussions, I put a high value on such paths to challenging religion. However, the majority of people haven't much of a care for these avenues, and I dare say most were never hooked into a religion nor continue to adhere to their religion due to sophisticated philosophical or historical arguments, so why should it be assumed not just that such arguments would disengage them from religion, but that such arguments are the only means to do so?

I very much like Coyne's comment about the intent of New Atheist criticism: "to lessen the moral authority and hegemony of religion in our society." A sophisticated line of argumentation will succeed in both intellectual circles and in legal challenges against the impositions of religion, but I would argue such an approach alone will not address the real force of religion, and that's the hearts and minds of society. Surveys show it's virtually impossible for an atheist to get elected to any political office. Most people believe you can't be moral without religion. Most people think you can't be a true American without belief in a god. The allowances for religious exemptions are causing havoc in America by way of kids not being vaccinated and in dire circumstances like Madeline Neumann. Calm, reasoned arguments alone are going to address such things? I'd say no, that such things do require emotional outrage, and comments which are "unsophisticated" with "bile" and "negativity".

I also want to address this sentiment of not wanting to contribute to the culture wars, as if conflict itself is the problem, so that tolerance and appeasement are the solutions to achieve "peace in our time". There are things worth fighting for, things worthy of outrage, things which require unsophisticated, passionate pleas and fist waving. Unfortunately, for some things there simply exists no "common solutions". Giving peace a chance is great, but there are some times when it can't deliver. Furthermore, peace should indeed be sought, but never at any cost. There are things worth fighting for, things which are more highly prized and more substantially rewarding to humanity than peace at any cost.