i've identified dawkins for a reason, and it's that his arguments push atheism into a different era. early hitchens falls into the same category, although hitch enjoyed pushing buttons in ways dawkins doesn't bother with. religious thinkers will accuse him of missing points, but in doing so they are the ones missing the point: the points dawkins supposedly misses are, in truth, discarded as anachronisms. he doesn't have time for that nonsense. whether consciously or not, dawkins tosses entire swaths of argumentation in the trash heap where they belong, and then absolutely correctly just shrugs his critics off when they point it out. that's what science calls progress, no matter how loudly the theologians may howl, otherwise.

what's the use in debating aristotlean physics every time we want to talk about quantum mechanics?  you maybe do it for five minutes at the start of the course. but, you don't dwell on failed theories. this is obvious to a scientist, but very difficult for a theologian, that wants to carry on ancient arguments into perpetuity.

but, the ideas of the new atheism are going to be connected more to an undiscovering of the past. asimov. russell. these were thinkers far ahead of their time, that were unfairly forgotten in the "new left" of the 60s, partially as a reaction to stalinism. what's going to unfold to future historians is how reactionary the baby boomer generation was. as they die off, their rejection of science is going to fade away, and we're going to pick up where we left off.

there will be new authors. we don't know who they are yet. but, they will be approaching atheism as a renaissance, and the new left will consequently be a kind of rediscovering of who it is that we once were - as we chart a path forward for who we wish to become.