Speculum et Lavacrum

The "New" Face of Atheism~
(This article will be subject to change, as well, later articles will be produced dealing with other issues and/or greater evaluation of the various issues that have already been raised in this article)

“The average Christian does not realize that there is a intellectual struggle going on in the Universities and scholarly journals and Professional Societies. Christians cannot be indifferent to the outcome of this struggle. For the single most important institution shaping Western culture is the University.” ~Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. J.P. Moreland

The new Atheism, fundamentally, is not “new” whatsoever. This emerging movement of Atheism is drawing from the same arguments that have flourished on the Academic landscape for centuries. However, the arguments this time are being re-cast in a new format relative to what’s going on in Astrophysics, various forms of Cosmology, and particularly in the biological field (i.e. evolution). But the fundamental issues are still the same. So why is it making such popular headway this time around?
There is a new style that marks this movement that epitomizes on what could be called, the “journalistic” phase. The Atheists are not writing so much at a heavy philosophical level as that which marked the 19th century, or in the beginning of the 20th century with the French Existential philosophers. There is a more pop-culture tone to the arguments of the New Atheists. They are expressing themselves with a greater militancy, a greater confidence and a greater hostility. Overall the New Atheism carries a new attitude. As Albert Mohler describes what is happening in his blog article entitled, The New Atheism?(1),
“It is not so much that Dawkins is attempting to convince believers that they should no longer believe in God. To the contrary, Dawkins is attempting a very different cultural and political move. He wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable.”
Antony Flew, contemporary to Bertrand Russell, converted from his atheism to theism stated concerning Dawkins’ book The God Delusion,
“…this book [the contents] shows Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).”(2)
This attitude towards theism, or better said, Christianity’s form of theism becomes apparent when reading or listening to lectures from the adherents of this movement. In a debate with Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Brian Lynch of the American Atheist Society boisterously remarked,
“…it [religion] has bound it [the human race], it has tied it, it has held it back, and it has continually tried to assert itself in society and the effect has always been detrimental. Throughout the entire history of the human race there have been people who have posited various gods, various ritual practices, various worship forms, and various activities that people should engage in because somebody has said its good for them. Now, what the atheists do, is they say, this is worthless, this is foolish, there is no reason to engage in all of these religious practices. We want to make sure that the people who do want to do this, separate themselves from society, and go off and play with their little toys, go off and play their games, go off and live in their fantasy world and don’t bother the rest of us. We are not imposing anything on society, we are simply saying, we don’t care to live under your religious…(indiscernible)…system.”(3)
And Christopher Hitchens in a recent debate with D’Nesh DeSouza echoed the same resentment and distain of religion,
“…there could be a virgin who can conceive, a dead body can walk again, your leprosy can be cured, the blind could see. Nonsense! It is not moral to lie to children. Its not moral to lie to ignorant, uneducated people and to tell them if they’ll only believe in nonsense, they can be saved. Its immoral!…The totalitarian concept of the afterlife, the idea, the hideous idea doesn’t even occur in the New Testament…excuse me, doesn’t occur, even in the violent, rape and genocide filled books of the Jewish Bible. There is no punishment of the dead. When God has destroyed your tribe, and had your virgins and children murdered in front of you, and your flocks and herds scattered and so on, you also fall down to a bronze sword. He’s done with you, the earth can close over you, that’s it, you tangled with the wrong tribe, the one He favored. Not until gentle Jesus, meek and mild, are you told, if you don’t make the right propitiations you can depart into everlasting fire, one of the most wicked ideas ever preached, and one that has ruined the lives, the peace of mind of many many (sic) children, preached to them by vicious child hating old men and women in name of this ghastly cult…” (4)
The New Atheists aren’t coming up with anything original. The problem is, in my opinion, but is not regulated only to, is that there are many who have been greatly hurt by someone who has taken on the name of “Christian” and are disenchanted with organized religions, if not grudgingly bitter towards them. So many can sympathize with these flamboyant sensationalistic atheists without even realizing let alone consider the under-girding presuppositions that preface their arguments/statements.
I am going to try and deal with both of these statements at the same time. First of all let us assume for a second that the way that Lynch and Hitchens present religion was accurate, what bearing on the validity of religion would the statements have? You can call religion any number of names but that does not have any weight on whether or not it (theism) is true. And if, Christianity per se, were true then it does not matter how one ‘feels’ about it, it is still true. One can call God evil all they want but this does not necessitate the fact that He does not exist, this just means that He is evil.
Lynch first states that religious people should go live by themselves but then right away says that Atheists are not imposing anything. Huh? Hitchens then makes the statement that it is immoral to teach your children religion. How does he figure? Would he then propose that it be illegal to teach one’s own children to believe in theism? These statements alone are an imposition, an imposition of regulation/separation. Just as Madelyn Marie O'Hare took the Bible and prayer out of schools, the move to regulate where one practices religion and what one teaches their own children is an imposition on somebody (specifically the theist). If the world at large claims to be theists, roughly eighty percent of the U.S., who then should be the ones regulated, the theists or the atheists? Why do they not just leave us alone? John Piper wisely recognized the contradiction in this ethical view when he stated,
“No one who makes her choice the criterion of another’s humanity or rights will let you make your choice the criterion of her humanity or her rights. Nobody will let you function by that principal. When we are in the position of the strong we like that our will governs right and wrong. When we are in the position of the weak we demand that you function by principals on the basis of dignity, my worth, my humanity… not your choice.”(5)
Hitchens then forcefully critiques the idea of a totalitarian view of destiny. Again, to quickly point out, it does not matter whether you like it or not, whether its evil or good, but the issue is, is it true or not? Hitchens, though being an atheist, does not seem to realize the implications of his own worldview. From the atheist’s worldview, what is the difference between being determined by God or being determined by the blind forces of chance and DNA? Even Richard Dawkins recognized the results of his own worldview,
“In the universe of blind physical and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music”(6)
It does not seem Hitchens even realizes that even within his own worldview, DNA has determined some to be theists. If Atheism is true, that would make Hitchens more pitiful for fighting against this chance selection of biological determinism. Under this banner of the New Atheism, religion would be nothing but an evolutionary meme (a theory developed by Dawkins ). A meme, that would be necessary for the survival of the “selfish gene”. Along these same thoughts, Albert Mohler commenting on Daniel Dennett noted,
“Dennett does not see faith as something that can be intellectualized away. To the contrary, he sees belief in God to have served an evolutionary purpose. Even as he now believes that evolutionary purpose is no longer helpful, he argues that such an evolutionary feature is not likely to be eradicated quickly. Therefore, Dennett suggests replacing belief in God with something of a secular substitute.”(7)
So religion, being a necessary part of the evolutionary process would be in the end beneficial for survival, so why are the New Atheists calling it evil? Another pertinent question is, is it evil intrinsically or is it evil because they do not like it?
Hitchens then proposes that eternal fire is one of the most wicked ideas ever propagated, one which has ruined the lives and the peace of mind of many children. With the preceding statements in mind, this whole issue is nothing but a bi-product of a cultural meme which was determined by DNA. It would also seem that Hitchens is presuming an inherent value within the child. Why is a child, or his or her mind, inherently valuable. If we’re nothing but the product of time plus chance, as Daniel Dennett said,
“In the beginning, there were no reasons; there were only causes. Nothing had a purpose, nothing has so much as a function; there was no teleology [purpose] in the world at all.”(8)
Then there is no right, there is no wrong, there is no evil, there is no good, there is no value. Its all “better” and justified by the survival of the gene. But even then there is a more profound issue, which C.S. Lewis pointed out,
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents--the accidental bi-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s [thought processes]. But if their thoughts--i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy--are merely accidental bi-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident would be able to give correct account of all the other accidents.”(9)
The New Atheists propagate the immorality of teaching children theism. But this would imply a moral absolute, which is completely contrary to their biological determinism, for there would be no responsibility for one’s own actions. For something to be truly “immoral,” this would imply a moral law, which in turn would imply a moral-law giver, for if there is no moral-law giver, then there is no moral law, thus no immorality. And as Fyodor Dostoevski said, “If God is dead everything is justifiable.” It needs to be mentioned that I am not saying that all atheists are immoral, but as Ravi Zacharias pointed out,
“It is true that not all antitheists are immoral, but the larger point has been completely missed. Antitheism provides every reason to be immoral and is bereft of any objective point of reference with which to condemn any choice. Any antitheist who lives a moral life merely lives better than his or her philosophy warrants. All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the antheist is forever engaged in undermining his own mines.” (10)
In conclusion, even within the New Atheism, theism has a purpose, to promote the gene, which in the end is meaningless. There is no right or wrong, but theism is evil. Children and their parents are determined by DNA, but to teach them anything other than this is immoral. The New Atheists have become no better than the Christian hypocrites that they chide about. And as Socrates once stated, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” We all need to realize that “Ideas govern the world or throw it into chaos.” This becomes utterly alarming when taking into consideration Viktor Frankl, a WWII survivor, his statement that,
“If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazis liked to say, “of blood and soil.” I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry of other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”(11)
There is no such thing as a default position, one worldview will reign. And if man is the measure, then the question must be asked, which man? As Malcom Muggridge said,
“If God is dead then somebody’s going to need to take His place, it’ll either be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist, or the fallous Hitler or Hugh Hefner.”
The inconsistency of the New Atheism has radical consequences and is taking to popularity quite fast. They are moving towards being the measure of all things rapidly and if something isn’t done, the ramifications will be felt from generation to generation.

1. Albert Mohler, The New Atheism, http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21
2. Antony Flew, Flew Speaks Out: Professor Antony Flew reviews The God Delusion, http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/flew-speaks-out-professor-antony-flew-reviews-the-god-delusion.htm
3. Brian Lynch (American Atheist Society), James White vs. Brian Lynch debate, Is Atheism a Religion
4. Christopher Hitchens, D’Nesh DeSouza vs. Christopher Hitchens debate
5. John Piper, You Will See the Son of Man Seated at the Right Hand of Power and Coming on the Clouds of Heaven (Audio 04/08/90)
6. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p.133
7. Albert Mohler, The New Atheism, http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21
8. Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
9. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, pp.52-53
10. Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, pp.31-32
11. Viktor Frankl (Jewish WWII survivor), The Doctor and the Soul, XXI, 1982