Albert Mohler reported on Wired magazine’s latest cover article: “The New Atheism.” The author, Gary Wolf, aptly described this new brand of atheism represented by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris:
The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. . . . Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.
The new brand of atheism is not like the old. Old atheism was relatively passive. At worst the old brand of atheists would argue in the public square that religious belief is wrong, or intellectually inferior to atheism. But now atheists are being evangelistic and militant for atheism and against theism. They are arguing that religion is the cause of the world’s evils, and should be fought against as a social evil. Dawkins goes so far as to propose that the state should prevent parents from being able to teach their religion to their kids!
There is a war on religion in the West. This really hit home to me when I was walking through San Francisco with N.T. Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, in my hand. I thought to myself, I am more likely to be privately derided by passerbys for carrying this book than I would be if I were carrying Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Sam Harris wrote that “at some point, there’s going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God.” I think he’s right. That mood is already here. One of the main reasons for this shift is because people have become convinced religion is blind faith, unsupportable by reason. That’s why there’s a great need for Christians to become informed about their faith, learning the reasons that support their religious convictions, and then actively engaging non-believers and believers alike in the public sphere to share those reasons with them, persuading them of the intellectual viability of the Christian faith. Doing so will go a long way toward making Christianity a viable option in an increasingly educated culture that demands reasons to believe.
One quote appearing in Mohler’s article is from Daniel Dennett. Dennett argues that “if you have to hoodwink—or blindfold—your children to ensure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct.” I can agree with that!
P.S. Chad says there is a lot of anti-Christian sentiment at the new “On Faith” website.
November 22, 2006 at 9:24 am
Hello Jason and all,
Here’s my two bits on this intractable debate. Hope you and others can appreciate my efforts to provide a key to a true solution for humanity’s seemingly never-ending cycle of struggle and despair.
Analyzing the Creator Debate
Did you ever consider that atheism arose because certain people saw that religious characterizations about the nature of an omnipotent “God” were seriously flawed and then concluded that religion and the Creator were the same things? This is the exact same conclusion at the base of religious beliefs; namely that the Creator and religion are inseparable. Consequently, both atheists and religious followers are arguing over a flawed assumption without considering that other possibilities negate the common core conclusion of both groups. These arguments are actually over religion and whether it represents a reliable model of reality. The answer to this question is of course not. Religion is not only flawed, it is purposely deceptive! Though atheists are certainly sincere in their conclusions, the fact remains that they and religious followers are locked in a debate that cannot be won by either side because both base their positions upon whether the same flawed premise is the truth. In order for this debate to conclude with a truthful answer, a greater level of discernment is required.
One apt clarifying question is, if someone tells lies about you, does that negate you or make you a liar or a lie? Certainly, the image cast about you would be a false one, but that is their image, not the real you. Consequently, faulty religious assertions about the Creator of this universe do not negate the existence of a Creator. Considering the possibility that this universe is not by chance leaves the door open to how it arose, which leads us to seek what could have created and maintained it. Since neither religion nor science has yet adequately answered this question, it is safe to conclude that those who argue about the Creator based on either are most certainly wrong about one or more aspects. Therefore, another point of view and additional knowledge are required.
Read More…
Peace…
LikeLike
November 22, 2006 at 10:59 am
I am ALWAYS amazed at atheists who contend for an objective moral value. Truly ironic.
LikeLike
November 22, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Isn’t religions moral value subjective by definition? It’s just God’s opinion on what is right and wrong (or, in the real world, men’s opinion as to what that opinion might be.)
LikeLike
November 22, 2006 at 6:31 pm
There’s a new debate between Sam Harris and a believer here: http://www.jewcy.com/
direct link: http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/monday_why_are_atheists_so_angry_sam_harris
LikeLike
November 24, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Anonymous:
You said, “Isn’t religions moral value subjective by definition? It’s just God’s opinion on what is right and wrong (or, in the real world, men’s opinion as to what that opinion might be.)”
I would immediately suggest this is non-sequitur. Maybe we should be arguing IF God exists first, however; if God does exist He is a power higher than ours and is therefore not subjective in anyway.
Your comments also run circular, especially if you are an atheist or antitheist, etc. This is because without God then your values are determined by cultural subjectivity to the nth degree. So, what was the problem?
LikeLike
November 30, 2006 at 12:45 am
Anonymous,
No, what makes morality moral is not God’s subjective opinion. See my article titled “What Makes Morality Moral?” at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/divinecommand.htm
LikeLike
November 30, 2006 at 12:52 am
James,
Atheists want to have the best of both worlds. They know their worldview does not support an objective moral ethic, but they try to buttress it as if it is possible.
Jason
LikeLike
November 30, 2006 at 10:16 pm
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/divinecommand
Not sure, but this paper didn’t seem to explain why you would think that biblical morality is objective. What do you mean by “objective” and how does biblical morality qualify as objective? Does the bible itself claim that its moral code is objective? I’ve not seen where it might do this, but if it does, I’d like to see it.
Bill Saunders
LikeLike
December 1, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Bill,
That’s not what it attempted to do, and that wasn’t your original challenge. In your earlier post you asserted (in my words) that a moral code rooted in a divine being is no less subjective than a moral code devised by human beings, because in both cases it is just the subjective opinion of the individual holding it (human individuals in our case, a divine being in God’s case). The article I wrote shows how this view of a theistic version of morality is flawed. Theists don’t say X is right and Y is wrong because that just so happens to be God’s opinion on the matter. No. Theists say X is right and Y is wrong because X is inconsistent with the nature of God and Y is consistent with His nature, and His nature is good. God’s nature, rather than His opinion or command, is the basis of theistic morality.
Now you have changed the challenge. Rather that speaking of religious moral values and God in general terms, you are asking about the Christian God and the Christian Bible. That’s a different topic because it requires a demonstration that the Christian God—whose nature provides the standard for goodness—is the true God. I believe there is good evidence to support this conclusion, but it requires a lot of work—something I cannot possibly accomplish on a blog. In brief, however, I will say that the evidence for God’s existence in general is very good. Furthermore, the evidence supports the idea of a single divine being, not multiple divine beings, ruling our options down to the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I think Christianity comes out the clear winner, the main reason being the superb evidence in favor of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Assuming my arguments are successful (meaning there is more reason to believe the premises that constitute my arguments than their negation) it would demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. And if that God exists, then His nature provides the standard for goodness. And if the Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to man, then it provides us with the knowledge of the objective morality rooted in God’s being (although it is not the only source of our knowledge of morality).
Objective means “true of the object” rather than being true of the person who contemplates the object (subjective). If something is objectively true, it means it is true whether anyone knows it, or anyone believes it.
I’m not sure how you could read the Bible, and yet doubt that it has an objective view of morality.
Jason
LikeLike
December 2, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Rumor is that Alister McGrath is going to take on Dawkin’s newest work. Tentative title: “The Dawkins Delusion”. Should be interesting.
On a further note, I have lived in SF for a couple years now and I have found that there is actually a decent respect for someone who is studying out there faith.
LikeLike
December 2, 2006 at 7:58 pm
“I’m not sure how you could read the Bible, and yet doubt that it has an objective view of morality.”
I’m not sure how you could read the Bible, and yet doubt that it has a subjective view of morality.
LikeLike
December 8, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Anonymous,
Give me some examples, please.
Jason
LikeLike
December 8, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Brian,
I would like to read that book. McGrath is a powerful intellectual.
Jason
LikeLike