Here's a piece I wrote for an on-line community of which I am a part, on the New Atheism. Input is welcome.
What is the New Atheism?
What is Atheism? Atheism is best
defined as the belief that there is no God or gods. “A” is a Greek
prefix meaning “not,” while “theos”was used by the Greeks for both God
and the gods. (It is important to keep these concepts distinct, since in
Greek as in other pagan religions, the polytheistic “gods” are
conceptually far removed from God as conceived not only in Christianity
but even by “pagan” theists. The “gods” are birthed and therefore
dependent, limited in knowledge and wisdom, local, and possessed of
lust, jealousy, ignorance, etc. Making a clear distinction draws the
force of the New Atheist “We just believe in one less god” and the
“Outsider Test for Faith.”)
It is incorrect to define atheism as
“lack of a belief in God,” which would make not only babies atheists,
but presumably Laborador Retrievers, redwood trees, and slabs of
petrified wood. Atheism is the positive denial that such a being as God
exists. However, in Christian psychology (St. Paul, Paul Vitz, Jay
Budziszewski), one should keep in mind that a person can deny on one
level of his being what he knows or affirms on another. This inner
conflict may, indeed, explain some of the pique for which many atheists
are famous, and why apologetics alone seldom persuades. Some atheists
appear not only conflicted, but angry, wounded, and in Promethean or
sexual rebellion against the God they claim to disbelieve (Freud, Marx,
Nietzsche, Sanger, being interesting case studies). Wise apologists
should keep all this in mind, but also keep both ears and their hearts
open, while engaging atheists on the intellectual level. (Self-declared
atheists typically having a high level of education in western society,
as is typical of religious minorities -- see Rodney Stark.)
What
is the New Atheism? Beginning with Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion in
2006, then books by Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, a
wave of anti-religious and especially anti-Christian sentiments struck
the collective consciousness of the English-speaking world like a
tsunami. (Presaged, one might say, by the likes of Carl Sagan.) This
movement has since broadened and includes a large number of other
thinkers (and, yes, thoughtless ranters).
Some have sought to
deny that “There is anything new about the New Atheism.” However, the
following traits do tend to characterize this movement, and distinguish
it not absolutely, but relatively, from most other forms of atheism:
(1) New Atheists (or “Gnus”) both
attempt to refute old arguments for God and offer old and new arguments
against God. Most of these seem a bit “seat of the pants,” since Gnus
typically do not bother to study the prior conversation in great depth.
(It being a conceit of Dr. Carrier that theology is too silly to bother
studying, a meme that has multiplied.)
(2) Indeed, intellectual immodesty
and self-confidence typify the movement to an often astounding extent.
This is often fueled by the conceit that “we rational thinkers” (Dennett
promoted the term “bright”) are inherently more reasonable than those
befuddled by religious “memes.” This in turn is often undergirded by
blind adulation of “Science” without defining and recognizing its
historical roots in theology (Medieval and even ancient Greek), its
cognitive dependence on philosophy, or its practical dependence on
history (all scientific experiments that we cite were carried out in the
past, by fallible human observers and their machines).
(3) One of the New Atheism’s most
pervasive themes is that religious belief is based on “blind faith.”
Gnus often seem to positively refuse to learn what Christians really
mean by faith, and revel in erroneous conceptions, by citing a few
well-known quotes from Tertullian, Pascal, Kierkegaard, or (even more
out of context), Jesus to Thomas, or a couple lines in Hebrews 11. Thus
many Gnu books refer to “Faith” in the sense of "believing not only
without evidence, but against the evidence" in their titles.
(4) Most Gnus are Secular Humanists,
and there is therefore a strong moral dimension to their critique of
Christianity. Christians are not only wrong, it is dreadfully harmful,
they allege. Thus they tend to offer an exceedingly dark interpretation
of Christian history, attempt to blame Christians for Hitler (Hector
Avalos), and ignore all the good Christianity has done. (Which they
seldom know anyway, since it seldom appears in text books.)
(5) New Atheists generally depend on a
liberal Jesus spin (Jesus Seminar, Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman). Some
have also developed their own theories, for instance Richard Carrier's
(failing) recent attempt to make mythicism respectable academically.
(6) New Atheists tend to express fear
of the political power of Christians, up to the danger of “theocracy,”
especially in the United States. Originally this was stated in the
context of Islamic theocracy in the Middle East and elsewhere, and 9/11,
and the rise of New Atheism may in part trace to an attempt to draw a
parallel between the two religions. Most but not all “Gnus” seem to
belong to the political Left in the US, especially the left wing of the
Democrat Party, with outliers bunched among the socialist left, and
among the libertarian-leaning right. This often lends a strong
political element to discussions between American Christians and their
secular opponents, with an underto of sexual Promethianism.
Books
For: Aside from the “Four Horsemen” named above, some influential New
Atheists or affiliated skeptics include Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier,
Greta Christiana, Stephen Law (perhaps), John Loftus, Bill Maher, PZ
Myers, John Paulos, Michael Shermer . . .
Rebuttals by CAA
Members: David Marshall, The Truth Behind the New Atheism (2007), Tom
Gilson & Carson Weitnauer, ed, plus other CAA members, True Reason
(2013)
Other good rebuttals: Tim Keller, John Lennox, Dinesh
D’Souza, (personally not very excited over Alister McGrath’s two books
on subject.)
