In the wake of the electoral defeats, now atheism experiences a resurgence (at least in the press):
The Church of the Non-Believers (Wired): A band of intellectual brothers is mounting a crusade against belief in God. Are they winning converts, or merely preaching to the choir?
Atheist Chic (LA Times)
Loading ...
December 27, 2006 at 15:41
I read the Wired article (I chose to forego membership to read the article in the Times). The author is no mere questioning agnostic. He is rather clearly leaning on the side of the atheists and thinks faith foolish:
-”We are called upon…vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth…or any other blatant myth...” (emphasis added)
-”Oxford is the capital of reason…”
-”Richard Dawkins, the leading light of the New Atheist movement…” (emphasis added)
-”Dawkins’ style of debate is as maddening as it is reasonable.” (emphasis added)
Anyone who has bothered to read Dawkins’ work knows that it isn’t reasonable at all. Using language like “leading light” carries a connotation of the right path, imagery stolen, by this atheist and others, from the people of faith from millennia ago.
If atheism is experiencing a resurgence, it’s only because so many impressionable minds are tuning into the church of the mainstream media.
December 27, 2006 at 16:04
The so-called “new atheism” is merely the same folly but a little more vocal. I think that this new push has come from a realisation that the atheistic-naturalistic-materialistic edifice has been found wanting and is ripe for replacement. The new atheists are losing ground on their preferred battlefields at a shocking rate so they have shifted focus – consider the judicial coups required to keep scientific criticism of Darwinism out of the classroom and (something closer to my neck of the woods) steps taken to make it illegal to expose children to religious education (even in the home) until the age of 16.
The new atheists are the new fundamentalists.
December 27, 2006 at 16:40
Atheism may indeed be experiencing a wave of popularity. I have an uncle that I have been praying for and witnessing to for years. He shares a philosophy of empirical positivism with Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking. We have a lively dialog so I read many of the books he recommends including works by Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins. Currently I am reading Dawkin’s latest work, the top-ten bestseller, the God Delusion. It is really a rallying cry to throw religion (especially Judeo-Christian) into “the dustbin of history”. It is a shallow, stereotypical analysis of Christianity, high on invective and low on information. It shows a very selective , minority view of history and ignorance of current apologetics and philosophy. If I were less charitable I would call it a screed. Dawkins contrasts the enlightened humanitarian values of scientific atheism to Christianity. He criticizes the dress of some TV evangelists, and paints Christian faith as anti-rational, homophobic, ignorant and violent, citing the inquisition and the crusades.
Dawkins message is clarion call not to Christians, but to agnostics and lapsed believers, to make a full commitment to radical atheism. He compares the social progress of atheism to the gay activism after New York’s Stonewall riots. I fear for the lost generation of 20-something Christian drop-outs who were fed a diet of anti-science young-earth creationism and who have been let down by decades of lukewarm religiosity.
To atheists critical of historical Christianity, I want to say, how about our experiments with scientific atheism in the last hundred years? While 3000 to 4000 died in the inquisition and up to a million the two crusade centuries, the atheist regime of Pol Pot managed to kill 2 million of their own people in only 3 short years. Stalin put to death 30 million of his own people (not including WWII deaths), Mao Tse Tung was responsible for 70 million deaths of his own people during peace time and the National Socialists of Germany, under a Eugenics program, scientifically exterminated 6 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and mentally challenged. So much for the enlightened values of scientific atheism. Let’s not try it anymore, please. History demonstrates that the human race, even under nominally Christian governments, is flawed and fallen. Yet whenever all religious restraints are removed, the result is usually tragedy on an unthinkable scale.
December 27, 2006 at 22:43
I thought Terry Eagleton’s comments about Richard Dawkins’ work were enlightening. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
There is a way that seems wise to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
December 28, 2006 at 09:34
I love how atheists attempt to hold up and glorify human reason and preach secular humanism but they fail to lift up any of the other aspects of human life. A readily accepted aspect would be the emotional aspect of life. Emotion is generally downplayed as an aspect of life which does not lead to knowledge but rather can turn someone away from “true” knowledge. Granted, things like anger, malice, envy or jealousy definitely are detrimental to knowledge but things such as joy, happiness or contentment can lead to knowledge not necessarily found in text-books. By this I mean a more over-arching knowledge of the whole of the human experience within the created order instead of focusing in on one aspect of life. One aspect is like examining one slice of a pizza while forgetting to look at the rest of the pizza as well. A pizza cannot be a whole pizza without all of its slices. If you take one slice away it is a pizza SLICE, not a whole pizza. So why do we do the same with human understanding? Why must reason be better than anything else?
They may not be worshiping a deity but rather they are setting up an idol unto themselves where those who achieve great knowledge through reason are the gods among the cattle. They create a false idol in the image of man.
As with all other types of human endeavors to create order it would seem that they have once again failed to include the innate human quality of depravity or sin as Christians call it. All are born with it and even the most respected and knowledgeable scholar will fall into its trap. There can be no perfection among men therefore men cannot be worshiped.
December 28, 2006 at 14:33
There seems to more about atheism these days. I thought it was dying out with all the other gods that people believe exist, obviously wrong. Just before Christmas I saw a programme about the new atheism as preached by Prof Dawkins and others in Britain and the USA. This programme was broadcast on UK TV channel 4. The presenter of the programme is not a christian but was playing devils advocate by interviewing atheist believers as mentioned above. The atheists hate the ranting of the christians saying how right they are and how all christians know the truth, but the very things the atheists hate in us they do themselves – they know the truth, there is no God or gods and they rant on in an angry manner themselves calling all people who believe in God fools and scientist who believe in God only half scientist. Even Prof Dawkins himself cannot disprove the existence of God. As to the atheist claim that getting rid of religion will help world peace the presenter of the programme asked them to explain Stalin, Hitler and eugenics. The atheists said that these people did not do these things in the name of atheism. ‘Just happened to be atheist,’ I say. Darwins book, origin of species is their new testament document and as the programme said that even this theory of evolution is being destroyed and that by someone who isn’t a christian, but an agnostic, forgot the chaps name but he has come up with some other theory. The latest theory to back evolution is that of multiple universes and that we are one of millions – blind faith, where is the scientific evidence for this. Prof Dawkins latest theory of religion and its spread is liking it to some virus – stretching evolution theory too far.
If believing in God is a delusion, then changed lives, healing, visions, bible, God speaking to us, is all a delusion. I would rather be deluded by this than believe in something that cannot offer any hope, cannot tell me why we are here and is utterly loveless.
December 28, 2006 at 19:03
The perpetual oddity for me, in regards to Aethism, is its function in lieu of existing religions. The author of the Wired piece uses the language rather bluntly, but it also comes out in his quotes from Dawkins among others. I wonder if these Atheists would allow for room to doubt their own credal statements or if they cannot be questioned?
Also, I find the emphasis upon “reason” as the sole determiner of truth interesting. Mind you that the truth delivered is scientific, not artistic, not logical, not philosophical but quantifiable measures, and studies. If aethism is the shining light of our murky past then surely we would expect to see the dominance of aethism in other fields that involve logic (math for example) or within the academy more boradly, trends that may exist but not to nearly the extent necessary to show any correlation between logic and aethism.
Mostly, I just get a little frustrated with aethists… or at least the ignorant ones. Its one thing to be against Christianity, Islam, Judaism, but the idea that you will drive the heathen ideas from others heads sounds a little too much like the language of the crusdes for my taste. If you don’t like a religion fine, if you don’t like all religion fine, but please be able to realize when the edifice you are errecting to combat others, is just a negative of their thought.
December 28, 2006 at 23:40
I can’t believe that a Christian website would give space or voice to this atheist retoric. I’ve been banned from several athesist blogs and such for attempting to explain why it is that I have faith in God and specifically Jesus Christ.
That superior, absoluteist attitude makes me ill. It’s hard for me to imagine living a life without joy and hope.
I am well educated (many say intelligent) and a scientist, but apparently (or according to the atheist) I can’t possibly believe in God. Their position is that no true intellectual could ever believe in God. That’s where they are definitely wrong. I don’t need to debate points with a “non-believer”, because I know my savior lives. I’ve seen enough miraculous things in my life and in the complex nature of life to know He exists. But it doesn’t matter what I believe or what the atheist doesn’t believe, it only matters what is true. When you’ve seen the truth, then falsehood is all to evident. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess before Jesus Christ our Lord. I will continue to pray that one day, these people will come out of the darkness they’re in before it’s to late.
December 29, 2006 at 02:44
The greatest evangelists for atheism are Christians. Atheism becomes the default alternative for many young people when confronted with the absolutist claims of Christians that don’t work. There is so much fear and condemnation in Christian teachings, no wonder people want a different alternative.
Atheists do have some good points that we would do well to listen to. We are hypocrites in a religion that condemns hypocrites. If someone else is a hypocrite, that may be true, but they aren’t claiming to have the only way to salvation. If Christianity would clean its own house before going out and cleaning everyone else’s house I think it would have a lot more credibility.
I don’t want atheism to be the rule of the land anymore than I want Christianity to be the rule of the land. I agree that atheism ignores the heart and downplays the importance of our emotions. But, ironically, so does Christian fundamentalism.
The greatest evidence, to me, that something is at least partly true is a spiritual transformation. When I see someone become awakened to their deeper nature and begin to reach out to others around them with love, I pay attention. And I’ve seen that happen to people of many beliefs and non belief.
December 29, 2006 at 08:49
Contrary to RichardH, above, I thank you at TC for bringing up subjects that we don’t always want to face head-on in our churches.
I found the Wired article very interesting. I love to see how “the other side” thinks and what makes them tick. Not so that I can blast them down, but so I understand what Satan is using against God. We should always remember that these people are searching for something too. Aren’t we all searching for truth? Unfortunately, they are looking in the wrong place and will suffer for that one day. It makes me sad, not angry.
One of their strongest arguments is our lack of compassion and love. If we lived like Christ every day, maybe non-believers would have less animosity toward Christians. Maybe not, but at least we’d be doing our job.
“Our struggle is not against flesh and blood [atheists], but…against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms [Satan].” (Eph 6:12)
December 30, 2006 at 19:34
Mr Harty says, “There is so much fear and condemnation in Christian teachings, no wonder people want a different alternative.” I tell people about my Lord and their need for Him in their lives. Awareness of sin and their sinful nature is part of the message, but only to explain their separation from God. I’m not their judge and don’t want to be. Yes, I agree that the knowledge of the judgement to come for unrepentent sinners should be cause for alarm and fear. If a person trys to seek an alternative to that truth, then they are only deluding themselves.
I do agree that Christianity (BTW, not a one fits all description of the various sects) has need of reform, but we as Christ’s disciples are commanded to go tell every nation and all peoples about the truth of Christ Jesus. I try to examine the log in my eye before noticing the speck in my brothers eye. I’m not sent to judge others, but to proclaim the gospel and exalt my Lord.
April, you need not declare your point and make me look as if I didn’t have a relevant or valid opinion. Your attempt to validate yourself at my expense wasn’t necessary. I value you opinion without degrading you in the process. The Bible talks about people seeking the truth (or light)but often ignoring it… John 1:4-11 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
December 31, 2006 at 19:44
Presenting a trite slogan like “New Atheism” is like “New Sex” or “New Math” or repackaging anything else that has long been with us under a “new” label. There is nothing new about it. It is just enjoying its latest 15 minutes of fame, because some media mogul decided to give it attention.
Dawkins has generated several volumes of tautology: if you start with the premise that there is no God, you can logically arrive at a very convincing argument, based on any amount of accurate scientific data, that there is no God. (If you start with the premise that there is a God who created the universe, the same facts will support the opposite conclusion with equal logic.)
It is true that Christians who claim to know the precise nature and commands of God feed into the same miserable argument. I don’t know whether God is a Trinity or not; the Bible is not clear, only church councils and philosophers are emphatic about that and many other points. Dogmatism, the human desire to fit God (or the absence of God) into a box the human mind can comprehend, has been deadly in many ways throughout history. A little humility can, when we are very lucky, allow faith to perform a good work in all of us.
January 3, 2007 at 19:16
RichardH,
I am truly sorry if it sounded like I was degrading you. I didn’t mean to do that. I was simply letting TC know that I appreciate that they post things that are sometimes uncomfortable. I was uncomfortable with your statement (“I can’t believe that a Christian website would give space or voice to this atheist retoric.”), so perhaps I spoke too loudly. I did not mean to offend.
(TC, I know this is off-topic, but I do want to apologize and I can’t link to him.)
January 4, 2007 at 12:20
Later in life, they will come around.
January 5, 2007 at 11:32
The “new atheism” is also a new form of fundamentalism. At least if you look at the history of fundamentalism as presented by Karen Armstrong and others. Fundamentalism is a reaction against the sense of loss of control over mainstream culture by those who are in great fear of the consequences of losing that control. You can see that in the Christian fundamentalist reaction to the loss of control of mainstream Christian culture when the main denominations became far more liberal. You can see that in the Islamic fundamentalist movement which is more about the incursion of Western values into the mainstream Islamic world. Now you see these radical atheists seeing most of the world becoming more about faith and they are scared. The more fear, the more the extreme reaction.
January 9, 2007 at 22:25
It seems that people are using “fundamentalism” as though it were an obscene term. Fundamentalism is defined as: “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles” (reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism). Yes, there have been (and there still are) some evil fundamentalists. However, if I follow a diet very strictly I’m technically a fundamentalist dieter (not an evil dieter…although some diets do seem quite evil). Also, someone questioned atheism with regards to atrocities against humanity by Pol Pot, et. al. Dawkins did not condone the immoral and unlawful stifling of people of faith. From the Wired article in question, “If the solution to the spread of wrong ideas and contagious superstitions is a totalitarian commissariat that would silence believers, then the cure is worse than the disease.” Also, to say that “not even Dawkins can disprove the existence of God” is trite. You cannot disprove that something doesn’t exist. And Dawkins never said definitively that there is no God. “The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small.” (with emphasis added) (reference: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html)
January 10, 2007 at 10:57
In my previous post when I wrote, “You cannot disprove that something doesn’t exist.”, that’s not what I meant.
I meant to write that you cannot prove that soemthing doesn’t exist.
What I mean is that if you say something exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove “it” exists. It is not on others to prove it doesn’t exist.