Atheists, agnostics and naturalists are generally benign toward Christians. They are comfortable with that you believe something that shows that you are cerebrally deficient. Be kind to the cretins. However there are old-school modernists with an attitude called the “New Atheists”. They are irate because not only is theism false and religion inherently irrational, religious people are dangerous.
The most visible of this select group of “Brights”, Richard Dawkins, author of ‘The God Delusion’, compares the evils of religion to the evils of smallpox, “but harder to eradicate.” He equates religious faith with mental illness. Teaching children from the Bible is child abuse. According to Sam Harris, author of ‘The End of Faith’, religion is so bad it should be eliminated like slavery was. Christopher Hitchens’s book speaks for itself: ‘god is Not Great—How Religion Poisons Everything’. Dawkins is of the opinion that the ruling elite should consist of people like him – and as we will see, while these are ‘Brights’, there are no moral ought’s in scientism.
No new breakthroughs in science, discoveries in history, or developments in philosophy have upended Christianity, so their arguments reveal serious weakness. Philosophy in religion has a strong heritage through the centuries and has taken great strides during the last few decades with many intellectuals like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, J Warner Wallace, Nancy Pearcey and John Lennox, to mention only a few. Every Christian should read their work.
One of the foremost philosophical atheists in the world, Antony Flew, who caused much damage amongst the ranks of Christians, did a dramatic about-face and embraced theism on the strength of the scientific evidence for a designer. There is really nothing new about the “new” atheism except their visibility and the belligerence. It is expected, I suppose, to take the route of ad hominem (insults) when arguments are weak. The New Atheists generally do not argue for atheism but attack religion with rhetoric, slogans and straw man tactics.
Most atheists claim their objections fall into three types: reason, science and morality. But tactically they use ridicule, and ridicule and scorn are not evidence. Simply labelling an idea as silly, simplistic, or unsophisticated does nothing to disprove the idea itself. One cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. It is therefore vital to separate rhetorical style from the facts. It is not worthwhile repeating Dawkins’ vitriol here, knowing that he would not dare do the same to Islam while in an Islamic country.
Common objections are: Christians are hypocrites. Yes, most Church-goers are imperfect, but this says nothing about Christ. It just confirms the human fallen nature that only Christianity exclusively teaches. Being born into a certain country or family determines what religion you subscribe to. True, but that has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity. If God is a crutch for some, it does not disprove the existence of God. The atheist’s question is simple: Does God exist? Any appeal that does not speak directly to that question is an irrelevant, irrational intrusion. Since atheists claim that reason is on their side, do some careful thinking when in a discussion. Help can be gained here with a book and DVD course ‘Tactics’ by Gregory Koukle (www.str.org). The purpose of reason is to discover what is true from distracting or irrelevant details.
The belief in God can be made with sound reasoning. That God exists is a much larger topic. Resources with this are a) ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist’ book or DVD by Geisler and Turec, and b) ‘Does God Exist’ (Truth Project TRUEU) DVD set and ‘Intelligent Design’ book by Stephen Meyer. The scientific principle that every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing can cause itself means that things happen for reasons and have to be sufficient to explain what took place. Nothing that happens made itself happen. The Singularity Big Bang (effect) needs a Big Banger (cause). Design (effect) needs a designer (cause). Moral law (effect) needs a moral law giver (cause). Therefore, God exists. Of course, if God exists it does not necessarily mean the God of Christianity. That is another argument based on the revelations and realized prophesies in the Bible. Many books have been written that flesh out the concepts of this paragraph if the reader is interested, or Christian Apologetic internet sites with articles, video and audio downloads.
Something outside the natural, physical realm must have caused the cosmos and is the most likely explanation. Each variation of this argument shows that belief in God is rational, that there are good reasons to conclude God exists. Even if it turns out that theists are mistaken, there is nothing irrational about their conviction. Contrary to the New Atheists claim, theism has a solid foundation in reason.
A question that always pops up even though it was asked and answered since early church history. “Who designed/made God?” First, in logic, an explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation. Second, the premise is not, “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “All effects have causes.” By definition an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is not an effect.
Atheists and sceptics often cite evil as evidence against theism and in favour of atheism. This is the moral argument mentioned above. The problem of evil is only a problem if evil is real. To say something is evil is to make a moral judgment, and would require a moral standard or a moral law. A moral law requires a law giver. If the law is objective and transcendent, then the law-giver must also be. Some try to avoid this implication by claiming that evil is subjective, and is something they just don’t ‘like’. If this is the case then the objection of evil against theism falls away. In a world where there is no God, barbarism, misery, ignorance, slavery, pain, hunger and destruction is not tragic or wicked. These are just things we may or may not like. If there is nothing in the universe that is higher than human beings, then what is morality? It is a matter of opinion. Some like milk, others like meat. Stalin liked to kill people, others like to save them. Who is to say which is better.
Citing religious evil as evidence against the existence of God is fallacious. When it is claimed that religion, even Christianity, has been responsible for more wars, wickedness, and wonton evil than anything else in history, one answer would be to agree. Even if that is true it says nothing about the legitimacy of religion or the existence of God. One cannot infer anything about God’s existence from the behaviour of people or the teachings. You cannot hold a religion responsible for the crimes of its heretics. There is a second problem with the “religion kills” argument, this time “only the facts, please”. The atheist is in no position to object to carnage done in the name of God because atheistic ideologies in the 20th century have been responsible for the greatest blood-letting in all history. To the tune of over 100 million bodies for communism alone. There is a certain natural affinity between particular world views and behaviours and lifestyles that seem logically to flow from them. Atheism doesn’t require mass murder, but it has few ideological resources to resist it.
The brilliant scientist Stephen Hawking wrote and said that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space (philosophy is ‘dead’). Hawking did not notice that he was making a philosophical statement. “We should seek the greatest value of our action.” As a scientist how did he get “value”? Not with the scientific method. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Hawking did not see that ‘nothing’ is ‘nothing’ - no gravity either. Mass (matter) is prior to gravity therefor there would have to be mass to have gravity. Did Hawking run a battery of experiments to show something will come from nothing? This is scientism in full swing and he certainly would have to believe that philosophy is dead to make statements like that.
Jeremy Bentham wrote: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure,” he hopefully understood that when life is limited to the physical, pain and pleasure are supreme and there is not much room for moral thinking. Bentham claimed the uselessness of the divine and had no place for spirituality. In our secular age liberalism and existentialism trumps objective truth. The cult of scientism has called for the Creator to die - there is no point to religion because, in the end, life comes down to lust. Scientism leaves humanity with one final destination devoid of higher meaning or purpose, to be eaten by worms.
Some prominent scientists will even rely on their credentials and claim that there is no God. This opinion is of course outside of their defined scientific expertise, and is therefore of no value. Fortunately most scientists are no better philosophers than the ordinary person. Dawkins’s philosophy is an embarrassment to his fellow ‘Brights’. Do not be intimidated by those who wave the science wand.
Thus, in conclusion, we have seen that science and religion should not be thought of as foes or as mutually irrelevant. Rather we have seen several ways in which they can fruitfully interact. And that is why, after all, there is such a flourishing dialogue between these two disciplines going on today.