New Atheism

This is a militant and aggressive stance propagated by individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krause, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Carroll, and Daniel Dennett. (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett are often referred to as the Four Horsemen of New Atheism. FYI, Christopher Hitchens recently passed away, and his brother Peter Hitchens is an ardent theist/apologist. Go figure....)

While there is no real substantive difference between "old atheism" (David Hume, Bertrand Russell, for example) and "new atheism," one can argue that the latter proponents are far less civil in their discourse and interaction with theists.

Richard Dawkins, for instance, was videotaped instructing his audience to go "ridicule" and "make fun of" Christians. His book and documentary movie both titled The God Delusion describe religion as dangerous, divisive, fueling extremism, virus-like, irrational, stupid, etc. He has said the following about the Christian God: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." He says he is deeply committed to liberating those who have been oppressed by religion--by "religion," he means religious parents, religious schools, pastors, and the church. Look up David Berlinski's the Devil's Delusion which is a direct response to Dawkin's book.

Sam Harris wrote a book titled Letter to a Christian Nation in which he blames religion for 9.11 as well as most terror activities around the world. Harris also predicts that religion will be the cause of human demise in the near future unless it is eradicated. You can read more about it at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Ravi Zacharias has penned a short book titled End of Reason which is a direct response to Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. Zacharias provides thoughtful yet succinct answers to Harris' points and, as always, RZ exposes the opponent's false assumptions, biases, and lack of philosophical foundation.

I'd like to make three points as follows:

1. While New Atheists appear as if they're making more science-based arguments than, say, old atheists or theists, that's not entirely accurate. Yes, they have access to scientific findings, but they don't have the exclusive right, or some special privilege/ability, to make objective interpretations. Further, there are plenty of scientists (both theists and atheists) who disagree with the new atheists' interpretation of scientific findings and data. This "we-know-more-science-than-you-do"attitude and approach are very distasteful and offensive. Their hubris is quite repulsive. There is no grace, humility, or let's-agree-to-disagree cordiality from the NA's. 2. It is true that many have committed atrocities in the name of "religion" or "god." However, we know that atheism has killed more people in the past century than religious fanatics have done in the entire human history. From Hitler to Mao Zedong to Pol Pot, etc., atheist-caused atrocities and genocides are rather difficult to dismiss. Thus, while atheists can point to 9.11 or slavery or Crusades, they have an even bigger "elephant in the room" which they fail to address. Atheists are too busy pointing fingers at theists. It is obvious to me that both theists and atheists have committed heinous acts. That, however, speaks volumes about the fallen nature of man than whether God is good/bad, or if God exists or not.

3. Religion and religious people are not all "bad." The new atheists' portrayal of religion is really based on their bias or tinted lens or godless worldview. Historically speaking, it is the people of faith--and particularly Christians--who built schools and hospitals, empowered women, abolished slavery, fed the hungry, provided fresh water, vaccinated villages, send aid to the dying, etc. I would argue that more humanitarian "good" or "aid" were provided by the people of faith than by atheists. It's also wrong to argue that all atheists are bad or that they are not philanthropic. No, far from it. My point is that a categorical rejection of religion/faith based on some wrong-doings committed by a small minority of its members cannot be used as an argument to dismiss the existence of God.

What the New Atheists do effectively, in my opinion, is that they know how to used the new media very well--their presence and ubiquity on the internet is not matched by theists. So, I applaud William Lane Craig's ministry for creating short video presentations that are professional made and effectively presented. We need more stuff like that to convey the theistic points of view to students, skeptics, and those who want to be equipped.