I Know You Are, But What Am I? A Critique of New Atheism
/
“THINKING MAN READING BIBLE”: GENERATED BY BING IMAGE CREATOR
“Is there a thing,” queried a wise king, “of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us” (Eccl 1:10). And so it is with all things. New forms may appear, but of new substances there are none. Enter: New Atheism. “The term ‘new atheism’ was coined by the journalist Gary Wolf. He used it in a 2006 article for Wired entitled ‘The Church of the Non-Believers’… The label “new atheism” has stuck.”[1] Amid the endless recycling of errors and heresies hurled afresh against the church by the gates of hell, our modern day has seen the rise of this new form of old error. This paper will seek to define the movement and offer biblical critiques.
New Atheism
Let us begin by considering the who, what, why, where, and how of New Atheism.
Who?
The movement has been championed primarily by four leaders, referred to as the Four Horsemen: biologist Richard Dawkins, late author Christopher Hitchens, philosopher Daniel Dennett, and neuroscientist Sam Harris. The ranks also grew to include others, notably, late physicist Stephen Hawking. While having their own minor disagreements with each other,[2] these men share in the essence of New Atheism. This essence or gusto of the movement, which is really what is unique about it, we will consider presently.
What?
What is New Atheism anyway? First of all, it is not really new. Its main position is naturalism. However, New Atheism postures its age-old objections to spirit and faith of any kind in an aggressive mold. “There’s a much harder, more offensive, in-your-face edge.”[3] New Atheists call openly for the elimination of all religion from public and private life. According to this doctrine, believers are madmen and religious parents are child-abusers who ought to be prosecuted by the State. This not-your-grandfather’s-atheism markets itself through the eloquence and reputation of the Horsemen. New Atheism tends toward exaggeration and refuses to acknowledge any real good proceeding from religious tradition in general and Christianity in particular. According to Nobel Laureate and New Atheist Steven Weinberg, “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion… Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.”[4] And there you have it.
Why?
Interestingly, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the spark that lit the lamps of New Atheism. If this is where religion naturally leads—and the Horsemen assert just that—then religion of any sort anywhere is a danger to human life and flourishing everywhere. Weinberg again says, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”[5] And so this act of senseless violence is somehow pinned on all religious adherents—at least, they are walking the path toward such an end, whether they know it or not.
But there is another why to consider here, namely, why the surging popularity of New Atheism’s shallow argumentation? The broad-brushed categorization of jihadists with Christian missionaries in the 10/40 window would not be allowed in former, more thoughtful ages. Perhaps its present popularity is due to the fact that its fast-paced and hard-hitting simplicities sell quite well in our shallow, unread, and unthinking meme age.
Where?
The movement has gained traction in England and the US. An infamous bus advert in England is a time-capsule of New Atheism: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”[6] In the United States, where atheism is slightly less popular than in England, the Horsemen have nevertheless enjoyed success. Richard Dawkins in particular is treated with reverence by his followers: “For many atheists in this world, Richard Dawkins is god.”[7] Inevitably, idols of this sort appear where men have significant security, prosperity, and leisure to enlist themselves in such causes as the New Atheism.
How?
Rock-star status rabbis preach and teach the dogmas of New Atheism in the West, in classroom and public square alike. Its proponents “regularly appear on the front tables of America’s bookstores and the frontpages of our newspapers.”[8] The infamous bus campaign mentioned above is an example of the no-nonsense and simplistic approach which New Atheists bring to the discussion. While religion is a main target in general, Christianity seems to be the first name on New Atheism’s hit list. This focus does not hurt the popularity of the movement in the West.
Biblical Response to New Atheism
Let us now turn to several specific principals of New Atheism and seek to answer them biblically.
Men of Faith
The New Atheists tout themselves as men of science rather than men of faith. Modern science, they assert, holds the key to understanding all things that exist. In this regard, Charles Darwin is a celebrated forefather of the movement. Richard Dawkins, speaking of God, says, “Darwin kicked him out of biology.“[9] Elsewhere, he says, “What Darwin did was to show that even the worst case, even the most difficult case (that’s the living case), has a perfectly rational, simple explanation.”[10]
However, Darwinian evolutionary theory is anything but simple. It requires faith to believe that mathematical laws can create inanimate physical matter, and that inanimate matter—given enough time—can create and advance the complexities of biological life. In comparison, the explanation that an Intelligence created all living things that, according to Dawkins, “on the face of it have purpose written all over them,”[11] is the simplest, most rational explanation. As one of our own poets, contemplating the Big Bang, observes:
From the Mind, thought produced a speck of light.
It was infinitely hot, so extremely bright.[12]
In other words, a Creator created creation. Here we have the ancient conclusion of the church that God is the unmoved Mover, or uncaused Cause of everything that exists. It appears that this conclusion is too obvious for New Atheists to see. They have missed the truth right under their noses, like Gandalf seeking to learn the whereabouts of the One Ring somewhere out there in Middle Earth whilst it dwelt beside him all the time in his small smoking partner’s nasty little pocketses!
True Science
The single pillar upon which New Atheism seeks to erect its house is that of modern science, or the empirical observation of the physical universe. New Atheists rely heavily on Darwin. Al Mohler says, “The Dogma of Darwinism is among the first principles of the worldview offered by the New Atheists. Darwin replaces the Bible as the great explainer of the existence of life in all its forms. The New Atheists are not merely dependent upon science for their worldview; their worldview amounts to scientism—the belief that modern naturalistic science is the great unifying answer to the most basic questions of human life.”[13]
Yet, the discovery of the laws of science is based upon something deeper, namely, the laws of logic. And so-called science cannot account for the existence of logic: “The suggestion that human reason can be accounted for in purely materialistic terms has, historically speaking, been regarded by most philosophers as a logical absurdity.”[14]
Richard Dawkins has quoted Peter Atkins, who answered Prince Philip’s protest, “You scientists are awfully good at answering the how questions, but what about the why question?” Atkins responded, “Sir, the why question is just a silly question.”[15] However, the curiosity of the why question is the actual driving force of science as we know it. In this connection, we can even say, “The Bible positively encourages science.”[16] And, unlike New Atheism, the Bible has the philosophical and metaphysical foundations to account for the laws of reason as well as the supposed all-explaining laws of science.
Morality
Much of the rhetorical force of New Atheism, especially as channeled through its brightest oratorical star, Christopher Hitchens, comes from its moral outrage at the atrocities of history that have been committed in the name of religion.
Yet in lodging its objections against the terrible evils of evil, religious men, it fails to apply the same standard to its own team. Have not terrible atrocities been carried out in our world in the name of atheism? The totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century as well as the continuance of such a State in North Korea today is overwhelming evidence that the flag of atheism can also fly over evil just as well or better than those of religions. Yet New Atheists do not group themselves with such fellow atheists. Were they to extend this same leeway to people of faith, they may discover themselves to be in the same boat as Christians and many other religious adherents.
When it comes to Christianity in particular, New Atheism misses an obvious biblical pushback to its sweeping judgment against faith and religion: the main opponents of Jesus Christ were just the sort of murderous, hyper-religious zealots that New Atheism so decries. Nothing so opposes the life of faith as the strict, selfish, hateful lives of those who zealously devote themselves to manmade religions and commands, often being carried by them into hatred and violence against their fellow man. Naturally, every biblical Christian (not to mention most religious folks around the world) will agree heartily with New Atheism’s assessment of violent religion. The difference is, only the Christian has a true foundation for moral outrage of this sort in the first place.
No, You
“No you” is defined by Urban Dictionary as, “Possibly the greatest comeback ever devised.” The proper use of the phrase is as follows: “If you’re getting roasted, you can just say ‘no you’ and you automatically win.”[17] It is a hilarious Peewee Herman style clap back, no doubt employed in countless English-speaking human interactions every day. But, ironically, in this case, it actually works. For New Atheism is in fact guilty of many of the very errors it so vehemently accuses faith of fostering. And with these considerations, the present paper will come to an end.
First of all, notwithstanding the vitriol it spews at religion and its adherents, New Atheism is a religious movement. “It is a mindset that echoes the closed-minded prejudice and irrationality it typically attributes to religious believers themselves. Secularism is, in its way, a religion to itself, and it is a religion that cannot tolerate infidels or heretics.”[18]
It is a fundamentalist movement. Blind fundamentalism proceeds more from passion than thoughtfulness. It would appear that what drives the Horsemen onward is not the thrill of great scientific discovery driven by thoughtful curiosity, but rather the passionate militancy of a mind already made up. “New Atheism,” says Lennox, “is a belief system which, ironically, provides a classic example of the blind faith it so vocally despises in others.”[19]
It is without tolerance. New Atheism rightly points out the inconsistences of religions and especially their use for evil, oppression, and murder. Here, New Atheists, old atheists, and people of all religious backgrounds agree. However, the movement appears blinded to itself on this very point, for it exhibits extreme intolerance toward religion and its adherents. Historically, this kind of intolerance has led to real-life tragedies to the tune of millions of human beings murdered under atheistic regimes and their extreme intolerance. We have considered this ugly side of atheism above. But New Atheists, who prefer to distance themselves from the atheistic, totalitarian regimes of recent horrible human history, have already begun to walk the path which leads to such an end. Have they not already called for State prosecution of parents who teach their children principles of faith? It would seem that, in the end, the atheist-apple does not fall far from the tyranny-tree.
Conclusion
New Atheism is an aggressive form of naturalistic, Darwinian atheism whose open goal is to eliminate religion from the face of the earth. Yet, while the movement has enjoyed much success, it does not stand up under biblical or historical pressure of any kind. Christians, and especially pastors, would do well to acquaint themselves with these thought-systems and ponder the strong, biblical answers that the living God provides against them.
[1] AW Moore, “What the New Atheists miss about the meaning of God,” April 5, 2022, accessed December 15, 2023, https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2021/03/what-new-atheists-miss-about-meaning-god.
[2] Such as disagreement about calling themselves “Brights.”
[3] James White, “Polemics Lecture 5,” (MP3 of lecture, Reformed Baptist Seminary), accessed December 13, 2023, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1et9Tz2sByCf6US5XOATF8RG1sGMHFNHg/view.
[4] Quoted in John C. Lennox, Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (Oxford: Lion, 2011), 18.
[5] Steven Weinberg, quoted in Carey Goldberg, “Crossing Flaming Swords Over God and Physics,” April 20, 1999, accessed on December 15, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/20/science/crossing-flaming-swords-over-god-and-physics.html.
[6] “Atheist Bus Campaign,” accessed December 13, 2023, https://humanists.uk/campaigns/successful-campaigns/atheist-bus-campaign.
[7] White, “Polemics Lecture 5.”
[8] R. Albert Mohler, “The New Atheism and the Dogma of Darwinism,” February 7, 2011, accessed December 13, 2023, https://albertmohler.com/2011/02/07/the-new-atheism-and-the-dogma-of-darwinism.
[9] Quoted in Lennox, Gunning for God, 10. The rest of the audacious quote reads, [B]ut physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grâce.”
[10] Richard Dawkins, “Debate - Does the Universe Have a Purpose? William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins,” drcraigvideos, November 17, 2011. YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSf5mUnc-0.
[11] Ibid.
[12] “GZA - ‘The Spark,’ [Official Audio],” Babygrande Records. September 12, 2017, YouTube video, 0:08, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYr5DQkVLkM.
[13] Mohler, “The New Atheism and the Dogma of Darwinism.”
[14] Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2008), 5.
[15] Dawkins, “Debate.”
[16] Lennox, Gunning for God, 28.
[17] “no you,” accessed December 15, 2023, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=no%20you.
[18] Feser, Last Superstition, 2.
[19] Lennox, Gunning for God, 15.