by Matt Sieger
Move over Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche...
Make room for the new kids on the block—Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens! These "New Atheists" proclaim God's non-existence with great fervor. But they're not saying anything new.
Dawkins declares, "Faith is the great cop out." Where did we hear this before? Oh, yes, Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people."
Harris says belief in God is "a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind." Not new. Freud said that to put faith in God is "patently infantile."
Hitchens states, "God did not make man in his own image. Evidently it was the other way about." Nietzsche said it already: "Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's?"
The Bible (oops, sorry atheists) got it right: "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
So what's different about the New Atheists? They're just more "in your face." As Clark Pinnock notes:
These fellows such as Nietzsche and Freud thought more in depth about what atheism entails and could understand what might interest thoughtful people in religion. The new atheism in contrast is disinterested in fair-minded discussions about whether religion might actually have something to contribute to human knowledge. In the new atheism (and it is not really "new"), readers are not expected to understand religion or have any sympathy for it. Instead they are exhorted to detest faith.1
But the New Atheists are actually wimps compared to the old atheists. When Nietzsche declared that God was dead, he understood that if there is no God, there are no morals. The New Atheists are afraid to go that far. They say we can have moral standards without God. But if there is a moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. Where does our conscience come from, if not from God?
Perhaps the New Atheists are afraid of the anarchy that would result if people practiced atheism the way Nietzsche understood it. If there are no moral standards, then who is to say that Hitler did anything wrong? No one would need to deny the Holocaust. People could just say that the "Final Solution" was morally neutral.
In shying away from Nietzsche's logical conclusion, the New Atheists are intellectually dishonest. They want to create a moral universe without God. Whose morals will they choose? And why should others follow the morals they select?
The new and old atheists say that only a fool believes in God. But the Hebrew Scriptures say, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
The atheists claim that only the ignorant believe in God. But the Scriptures say, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7).
In the late 1800s, Nietzsche predicted that the necessity to believe in God would fade away in the face of science and technological advancement. With God out of the way, we would make a better world. How have we done? Chris Hedges, foreign correspondent for The New York Times, has called the Christian right "fascists." But he's just as tough on the New Atheists and their faith in the human race. Here's his assessment on our progress:
"There is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history."2
Why is this? Because we have failed to account for the virus with which we are all infected: sin, our propensity to do wrong. Hedges says,
"Not believing in God is not dangerous. Not believing in sin is very dangerous."3
Sin is what separates us from God. It fouls up our relationships. It causes ugly thoughts. It weighs us down and burdens our conscience. The guilt we try to suppress or rationalize away persists. We feel that the God we say we don't believe in will punish us for our sins.
Unless sin is dealt with, we'll never be at peace with ourselves. The Scriptures declare that one man lived a perfect life, qualifying him to be our sin-bearer. He died in our place to pay the penalty, to declare us "not guilty" before God.
By individually acknowledging what Jesus of Nazareth has done for us, we can be reborn and experience internal peace and the security of knowing we will live forever in heaven.
If Nietzsche was right and we don't need God anymore, what are these New Atheists screaming about? If God is dead, why make such a fuss?
Maybe it's because they (and we) have an internal knowledge that God made us and "has planted eternity in the human heart" (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Look up at the stars some night (even through the smog), or watch the sunset. Do you think this world is an accident?
If you do, are you willing to bet your life on it? If those of us who have believed in Jesus are wrong, and there is no life after death, we have lost nothing by believing. But if the new and old atheists are wrong, and there is an ultimate judgment, you have everything to lose by not accepting what Jesus has done for you.
If you believed the old atheists, don't get fooled again.
Where do you want to spend your eternity? With the New Atheists? Or with your Maker?
- Clark Pinnock, "God And The New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, September 1, 2008, http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social-assistance-lifestyle/religion-spirituality/1895338-1.html
- Chris Hedges, interviewed by Charly Wilder for Salon.com, "I Don't Believe in Atheists," March 13, 2008, http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/index.html
- Ibid.
3 comments:
My comment is not in regard to the truth or falsehood behind athiesm. It simply responds to the blog's comment that past atheists remarked that without god there is no morality, whereas current atheists do not make that argument.
Science is closer and closer to finding innate morals in animals. If this is proven, we will have a firmer understanding of the presence of morals in humans without the belief in god. Current atheists understand this and follow this scientific research, where past atheists could not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html
This article from the NYTimes is from 2007 and therefore out of date in the world of scientific research, but is good for understanding the origins of the scientific discovery as to where our natural moral compass comes from. If we argue that God, and the belief there in, is the basis for our sense of morality, then we will need to rewrite history and the moral transgressions mady by millions in the name of God. Religion and God certainly help provide a blueprint for moralistic behavior but morals alone are not a strong enough argument for a reasoned belief in God and modern atheists know it. Belief and a well-educated following of God's doctrine can simply strengthen or heighten the already-present God-given innate moral compass in each of us.
Dear Anonymous,
I read with interest the New York Times article about Dr. Franz DeWaal's research and theories about monkey morality. But even Dr. DeWaal made this admission in his book, Good Natured: “Even if animals other than ourselves act in ways tantamount to moral behavior, their behavior does not necessarily rest on deliberations of the kind we engage in. It is hard to believe that animals weigh their own interests against the rights of others, that they develop a vision of the greater good of society, or that they feel lifelong guilt about something they should not have done.”
As Dinesh D’Souza notes in his book, What’s So Great About Christianity: “The problem is that this entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. It confines itself to explaining altruism, but it only succeeds in explaining what may be termed ‘low altruism.’ But humans also engage in ‘high altruism’: which may be defined as behavior that confers no reciprocal or genetic advantage. A man stands up to give his seat on a bus to an old lady. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she or someone else will give him a seat. He gives up his seat because he is a nice guy. There is no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior.”
I find it interesting that you conclude your comment by referring to the “God-given innate moral compass in each of us.” On this very important point we seem to agree!
Matt Sieger
Hello there, discovered this site and your blog...I love it all and will keep coming back! It is all very interesting to me and I am going to recommend it to my friends who are disciples of Jesus! Keep up the great blog entries!
Post a Comment