The Book's Purpose
- Present the differences between the
foundations of modern atheism
and the New Atheism seen in
the 21st century
- Summarize the various contributions
of modern minds to the idea of a
New Atheism
- Discuss the extreme polarization
between modern theists and atheists
- Place a demand on the Christian to
recognize the importance of belief
in a biblical God over the now
increasingly organized beliefs of
New Atheists
The Book's Message
Atheism used to be characterized by a sense
of mourning due to a loss of hope and purpose
for life on this earth. However, the New Atheism
of the 21st century is not characterized by grief,
but a sense of superiority and enlightenment.
Scientific theories and social movements have
combined to create a new type of atheism hostile
toward any sort of higher being, especially the
God of the Bible.
Followers of Christ need to be acutely aware
of these changes and prepared to stand confidently
against the vigorous efforts of this new atheism.
Introduction
In Psalm 14:1 we learn about the fool who says in his heart that there
is no God. Clearly, atheism has been around for a long time. Following
the Enlightenment, a worldview espousing the position that deities do not
exist “became an organized and publicly recognized worldview … and
has maintained a foothold in Western culture ever since.”
On April 6, 1966, the cover of Time magazine was emblazoned with
bold, red letters asking “Is God Dead?” This query seemed to announce
the beginning of a new era.
Since then, atheism has penetrated our culture in a variety of ways.
Atheists have published books, trumpeted their views in the media, led
seminars, and participated in public debates.
“Atheists have represented only a small (if vocal)
minority of Americans. Surveys estimate that
atheists represent less than 2 percent of the
population, even as the larger group of
‘unaffiliated’ includes over 15 percent.” |
The intellectual elites comprise the largest single group of atheists.
“Atheists have largely, though not exclusively, talked to their own.”
But in recent years, a new surge of atheism has emerged. Books by
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two of the “New Atheists,”
have been highly acclaimed, even landing on New York Times bestseller
lists for months.
The most significant difference between “traditional” atheism and this
New Atheism is that it publicly opposes Christianity.
“The New Atheists are, in their own way,
evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope.
They see atheism as the only plausible worldview
for our times, and they see belief in God as
downright dangerous~an artifact of the past
that we can no longer afford to tolerate,
much less encourage.”
|
These New Atheists believe science is on their side. They hold that belief
in God is simply organized ignorance. “Many even argue that theistic
beliefs lead to violence, and that atheism is liberation.”
“He turned from the bankruptcy of human potential
and effort and turned instead to the total sufficiency
of God ... As Paul put it in Romans 4:17, he believed
in ‘the God who gives life to the dead and calls
things that are not as though they are.’ ”
|
New Atheists tend to target
young people, realizing that reaching
youth with their arguments is
foundational to their success.
“These
New Atheists
represent a major
challenge to the
Christian church
and to Christian
theology.” |
The Endgame of Secularization
Something has changed in our
culture, “and that change can be
easily measured by the sales of
books.” Until now, books about
atheism have not sold on a large
scale. Today books by Dawkins,
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are
selling in the millions.
“Atheism
has long had
a niche audience,
but it has now
become a mass
phenomenon
in terms of
publishing
and media
attention.”
|
What makes the New Atheism new?
Unlike traditional atheism, which did not grapple with whether or
not there is a god, but focused on discerning which god is God, the New
Atheism has veered away from the notion of a personal God. Modern-day
atheists, in the wake of the ideas of Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche,
now place faith in scientific and psychological theories above a supernatural
God. There is now a “sense of celebration that theism is finally left behind.”
“Freud put it this way: ‘The more the fruits
of knowledge become accessible to men, the more
widespread is the decline of religious belief.’ ” |
Secularization became common in the Western world in the 16th
century when Henry VIII decided land should not be owned by the church.
This decision resulted in a society full of vocations, arts, and language not
linked to the church. People no longer pursued these for the glory of God.
As John Sommerville predicted, differentiation between common society
and the church created an environment in which a person no longer went
to spiritual leaders for guidance.
“Whereas the church once defined reality across
an entire range of intellectual fields, it does so no
longer~even for most Christians.”
|
Prior to secularization, people would typically ask the pastor about all
kinds of issues~vocational ones, legal ones, intellectual ones, and so forth.
Following secularization, differentiation took place, so lawyers became available
for legal consultation. Psychologists were trained to counsel. And “the
secularization of colleges and universities has shaped the minds and worldview
of millions.”
Today the church has become an institution of choice instead of a cultural
center where answers can be found.
In the past, many cultures worshipped supernatural beings because they
had no other explanations for the meaning or the source of life. Modern
man, however, recognizes scientific theory and secularization as alternative
sources of meaning.
“Having moved from a time in which it was
impossible not to believe, through a time in which
it became possible not to believe, we have now
arrived at a situation in which, for the elites especially,
it has become impossible to believe.”
|
The New Atheist views himself as superior to the theist, and he has
waged a war against the very foundation of what theists believe.
I Don't Understand: Can You Help Me, God?
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett,
Sam Harris, and Christopher
Hitchens have become “The Four
Horsemen of the New Atheist
Apocalypse.” These four embody
the core message of their movement.
Richard Dawkins
Dawkins, the author of A Devil’s
Chaplain, views himself as a sort
of evangelist for evolutionary theories.
He introduced the idea of a
“meme~which refers to an intellectual
unity similar to a gene that
helps to explain the replication of
thought.”
Dawkins writes against believing
any sort of authority and also dismisses
any possibility of supernatural
revelation. His 2006 book, The
God Delusion, made him the most
popular of the New Atheists by
keeping him on the New York
Times bestseller list for months.
Daniel Dennett
The second of the “Four Horsemen”
is Daniel Dennett, a philosophy
and cognitive studies professor
at Tufts University. His 1996
book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,
discussed evolution as a “universal
acid.” In other words, evolution
is the one and only element that
can destroy every philosophy and
foundational belief system of all
cultures.
Dennett agrees with creationists
on one idea. He states, “Darwin’s
dangerous idea cuts much deeper
into the fabric of our most fundamental
beliefs than many of its
sophisticated apologists have admitted,
even to themselves.”
Dennett’s book, Breaking
the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon, became a key piece
of the New Atheist’s literature in
2006. He argues the purely naturalistic
reasons for religion to exist.
His ideas, though creative, are erroneous.
Dennett’s ideas are flawed; time and again groups of religious people,
such as the Jews, continue to exist even though it would appear that
natural selection had chosen them for extinction. Those who believed
in God survived; those who did not believe in God died.
“If the mind is nothing more than a chemical machine,
a neurological machine developed for the process of
evolution, then where did this (false) belief in a
supernatural deity come from?”
|
Dennett’s other idea is “belief in belief.” In short, man’s belief in God
has now switched into belief in that belief, and soon will become unnecessary
to believe in anything.
Sam Harris
The third and youngest of the “Horsemen” is Sam Harris, born in
1967 to a Jewish mother and a Quaker father. Unlike Dawkins and
Dennett, he does not solely rely on evolution as the foundation of atheist
thought. Instead he relies on his belief that Christianity is inherently evil.
“God himself is an ogre, Harris says~especially the God
of the Bible, who is not a god that any sane or morally
sensitive person would believe in, much less love. Belief
in God, Harris declares, corrupts human beings.”
|
In his top-ranked book published in 2004, The End of Faith, Harris
discusses the selfishness of a faith that considers a personal God to be
real. His idea is “the fact that you believe that God cares about you …
says everything about you and nothing at all about God.”
Harris also wrote a book in 2006 to the atheistic elite, and he cleverly
entitled it Letter to a Christian Nation. However, this is anything but a
letter to Christians. It is intended to be a sort of battle cry to the cultural
elite to rise up.
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens, previous to September 11, 2001, held left wing
Marxist political views. While his political views became more conservative
after the attacks on American soil, his anti-religious views were strengthened
by the Muslim terrorism’s proving that religion produces violence.
In Hitchens’ book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,
he explains his reasons for his anti-religious views. According to Hitchens,
religion feigns to know the origins of the earth, while it presents false
beliefs. He also claims religion forces humans to be self-absorbed, sexually
repressed, and full of false hope.
“Hitchens attempts to shame persons into acknowledging
their unbelief. Like the others, he is not necessarily trying
to convince believers that they ought to abandon belief.
He is seeking to create cultural momentum, to encourage
others to be more vocal in their unbelief.” |
While all four of these men
present slightly different reasons
for their belief in non-belief, some
characteristics are present throughout
all of their writing.
The New Atheist has a newfound
sense of valiance in their beliefs.
No longer is it simply ignorant
to believe in the Christian God of
the Bible, but according to the New
Atheist, “it is now evil to believe
in God.” The New Atheist vehemently
rejects Jesus by presenting
Him as exclusive and evil.
While the atheism of a couple
hundred years ago was considered
illogical, the New Atheist can now
claim a scientific basis for his unbelief.
“The
argument
of the
New Atheists
is that science
is the way
of liberation,
the way
of freedom,
and the way
of enlightenment.” |
The last few distinctions between
previous atheism and the
New Atheism are perhaps the most
revolutionary. They are rooted in
the idea that teaching religion to
children is “a form of child abuse.”
The New Atheists disagree with
the idea of tolerance, saying that
tolerance and teaching children
religion is a way to restrict
humanity’s freedom.
With these beliefs, the New
Atheists have begun a freedombased
moral mission to convert
others to their way of thinking.
The Defense of Theism
The New Atheism requires Christians to be knowledgeable intellectually,
morally, socially, and politically.
Alister McGrath, a theologian from Oxford University, had aligned
himself with the atheistic beliefs of Richard Dawkins~until he became
Christian. Since his conversion, McGrath has publicly opposed Dawkins’
ideas. McGrath claims Dawkins’ answers to the difficult questions are
interesting but that they are not necessarily reliable and based in facts.
In his book, Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life,
McGrath explains Dawkins’ portrayal of religious people as infantile.
Ironically, McGrath’s degrees and arguments alone defy that notion of
ignorant faith.
Dawkins himself admitted that the existence of humanity, according
to evolution, is extremely improbable. McGrath suggests that these “great
questions of life” cannot always be answered by science.
In his book, The Dawkins Delusion, McGrath states that “either we
cannot answer them [the great questions of life] or we must answer them
on grounds other than the sciences.”
McGrath also argues against the scientific idea of Dawkins’ memes,
claiming that memes are simply non-scientific.
While acknowledging the validity of statements made about violence
done by those who believe in God, McGrath clearly states that Jesus
Himself was not a promoter of violence.
“Jesus of Nazareth did no violence to anyone.
He was the object, not the agent, of violence.” |
Alvin Plantinga is another critic of Dawkins’ atheistic writings. He
focuses on the rhetoric of Dawkins’ work, saying that the atheist could
have a future in smear campaigns for politicians.
Plantinga reviewed The God Delusion in 2007 and discussed how
Dawkins’ view of naturalism is implausible. Plantinga claims that the
“conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief
in God.”
While McGrath and Plantinga make many valid points refuting the
New Atheism, they both consent to the idea of scientific evolution. But
the evangelical Christians should focus more on epistemology than metaphysics
as they grapple with the New Atheists, since “the self-authenticating
character of divine revelation is the only ground upon which a distinctively
Christian theism can be established.”
“The Defense of biblical theism reveals the
great divide in intellectual thought to be not
merely over the existence of God but over the question
of whether He has spoken.”
|
So my friend talked it over with
his wife and made the decision to
stay with the insurance agency to
be obedient to what he sensed was
God’s direction.
As we continued enjoying lunch
together, my friend had joy written
all over his face as he told me how
things were turning out. Two years
after the dream, his agency had now
grown to 120 people, most of them
college age. He explained how passionate
and teachable they were
and how he was able to reach them
with the gospel and disciple them.
When he reflected on the ages of
these employees, he realized that
they would have been the age of
his youth group back in the days
he was ministering at church, and
he thanked God for “bringing his
youth group back to him!”
“Truly he was called by God to make his business his
ministry for God. Once he grasped this and obeyed
God’s call God blessed him beyond his fondest hopes.” |
God has different ways of calling us~and different tasks he wishes
for us to accomplish. His call is clear and distinct for some, while he
impresses His call on others slowly and incrementally over a period of
time. Sometimes His call is for a specific time period and task. “It is
important to be open and ready to respond when the call comes.”
“Like the Word of God, which … ‘is a lamp
unto my feet and a light for my path’ (Psalm 119:105),
God has given me light, often at night,
for fulfilling His call on my life.”
|
The Future of Christianity
It is important for the Christian
to remember that only a small
minority of people claim to be
atheists, even though they are overrepresented
in the literary and philosophical
cultures.
Theologian Tina Beattie wrote
a book called The New Atheists:
The Twilight of Reason and the War
on Religion. She is well aware of
the threats the New Atheists pose,
but she claims that the intellectual
level is not where the battle is going
to be won.
“Beattie urges,
‘So let the men
fight about God
if they want to.
My concern is
not with the
debates about God
but with creation
and nature,
with language
and meaning,
with people,
and with
kindness.’ ” |
According to Beattie, the fundamental
creationist is to blame for
the rise of the New Atheism. She
suggests that the Bible should be
read, but not taken too seriously
due to the obvious contradictions
and “cultural anachronisms.”
A more appealing discussion
of the New Atheism is presented by John F. Haught’s God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. Haught claims that there is no conflict
between Darwin’s evolutionary theory and Christian theology. He says
that while theology consists of a personal God who gives humanity faith
and hope, that same hope can be placed into searching for scientific
reasoning for life.
“Haught, with Beattie, is particularly appalled by those who would
defend the historicity of the Genesis accounts of creation and, more
broadly, those who would argue that evolutionary theory and biblical
theism are fundamentally incompatible.”
“The God who would be rendered
acceptable to the secular age is a God
who would bear no resemblance to
the God of the Bible. This new God
would be a God who cannot save.”
|
The New Atheists are completely right about at least one thing. The
only God who is a danger to their beliefs is a God that is personal, allpowerful,
and intolerant of injustice.
People must choose whether to believe in the non-belief of the
New Atheism or in the full belief in biblical theism. “There is nothing
in between.”
|
