[This is the second article in a series on New Atheism. Read part 1.]
So, if New Atheism is a passing fad, what kind of impact should we expect while it’s around, and where should we expect it? I’ll suggest three main areas over the next three posts, acknowledging that they’re broad categories and there’ll be a fair-sized assorted grouping of people that don’t fit in these three broad categories. (more…)
Over the next several posts I’m going to outline some of my thoughts about the relative strengths and weaknesses of New Atheism, and things I think people should keep in mind as they think about addressing its claims and its criticisms of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. This series is aimed primarily at Christians who have some sort of public evangelistic or teaching role. It’s not a ‘how to’ guide on dealing with specific New Atheist positions—there’s a lot of great material around that does that, and it would be highly unlikely I could offer anything that hasn’t already been done much better by someone else. As a consequence I don’t really address any of New Atheism’s truth claims; I focus more on the reasons why I think it has the influence it does, reasons that are generally irrespective of its truthfulness or falsehood. (more…)
Unless you’ve been hiding in a cocoon for the past ten years, you can’t have failed to notice the New Atheists and their public challenge to religion and Christianity in particular. Men like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris (to name perhaps the three most famous examples) have proclaimed from whatever atheistic minaret they could find their call that the very idea of God is a delusion, that the God of the Bible is not great, and that ‘faith’ should be at an end. (more…)
I’ve been thinking about the problem of evil. Not so much the very pressing and existential problem of my own evil, but the classic three-part gotcha argument that every half-baked neo-atheist trots out these days with a smug smile. It usually goes like this:
(more…)
I’ve been thinking about the problem of evil. Not so much the very pressing and existential problem of my own evil, but the classic three-part gotcha argument that every half-baked neo-atheist trots out these days with a smug smile. It usually goes like this:
An all-powerful God could eliminate all evil and suffering.
An all-good, all-loving God would want to eliminate all evil and suffering.
Given that evil and suffering are everywhere in our world, the all-powerful, all-good, all-loving God does not exist.
The Universe Next Door (5th edition)
James W Sire
IVP Academic, Downers Grove, 2009. 293 pp.
I first read The Universe Next Door while I was at university. We were running an evangelistic event where students lined up to take a quiz to discover what world view would suit them best. We would then give them a pamphlet that explained their likely world view, along with any weaknesses it had and relevant Christian viewpoints they ought to consider. It was my job to write these handouts, and the Christian survey of various world views, The Universe Next Door, was my main source (in combination with Wikipedia, of course). I pored over it for a week, reading and re-reading, and got the pamphlets done in the nick of time. Then, in true student style, I ejected every piece of information out of my brain and moved on to my next assignment. (more…)
Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything
Edgar Andrews
EP Books, Darlington, 2009, 304pp.
It is a common belief that science and religion are locked in an eternal conflict, from which science will eventually emerge victorious—if it hasn’t already. In Who made God? Edgar Andrews, Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London, seeks to equip Christians with arguments to use in answer to the scientific claims of the New Atheists, particularly Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger. The title of the book refers to the common refrain of those who reject the idea of creation—“if God made everything, who made God?”—and the attempt of scientists to find a ‘theory of everything’, within which all physical phenomena may be accommodated. In response, Andrews puts forward the ‘God hypothesis’ as a true theory of everything that embraces both the material and non-material aspects of the universe. (more…)
Once upon a time, way back at the beginning, the Christian movement was charged with novelty. Nowadays, it is charged with antiquity. In both cases, its ‘timing’ apparently shows it is wrong.
The message of Jesus’ resurrection was launched into the Graeco-Roman world, in which the antiquity of classical culture was paraded as a demonstration of its truth and a guarantee of the future of the Empire. The Christian message was criticized for being ‘novel’, and so a troublesome threat for the stability of that world. One of the charges levelled at Jesus before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate was that he had misled the Jewish nation by claiming to be a king (Luke 23:2). When Jesus rose from the dead, he was proclaimed far and wide as ‘Lord and Christ’. When this new message about a king other than Caesar came to Thessalonica on its way to Athens, the crowds rioted, saying its preachers had “turned the world upside down” by this novelty (Acts 17:6).
We do not have an original copy of the New Testament. The New Testaments we read are translations of the Greek New Testament, which is itself an edited text compiled from several thousand manuscripts that have survived from ancient times. There is nothing at all abnormal about this. Still less is it insidious, suspicious, or grounds for uncertainty about the Christian message. It is, in fact, exactly what you would expect from an ancient text. In addition, the fact that such a large number of manuscripts lie behind the Greek New Testament is a very good thing.
‘Fundamentalism’ is a swear word. It takes many forms, theistic and atheistic. Basically it is rationalism in a different guise.
As is often the case when a word becomes a swear word, there is also a positive sense of the word that lies buried beneath the invective. ‘Queenslander’ means something entirely different on State of Origin night than when I am looking for a holiday destination. A ‘fundamentalist’ (positively speaking) is someone who holds that there are certain ‘fundamentals’ that ought to believed, for these give shape to their world view. In this positive sense, there are ‘fundamentals’ in any branch of knowledge (= science)—whether about God, or not about God.
Within ‘theistic’ circles, there is a ‘fundamentalist’ mindset that includes a very tight definition of what the New Testament (indeed, the Bible) should be like. It goes like this: if the Bible is God’s word and if God is perfect, then the Bible should contain no errors at all. As noble as this sounds, this is to decide the question beforehand. That is, rightly or wrongly, it needs to be recognized for what it is: an a priori argument.
There are many slippery words—words that appear to mean so many things, you begin to wonder if they mean anything.
Even ‘science’ can be one that gets quite greasy. It seems pretty slippery in some New Atheist discussion. Without knowing much about science—or Christianity, for that matter—some ordinary people feel that one stamps out the other—or, at least, that they are in serious conflict. On the other hand, a whole string of famous intellectuals (e.g. HG Wells, Albert Einstein, Carl Jung, Max Planck, Freeman Dyson, Stephen Jay Gould) have, according to New Atheist Sam Harris, “declared the war between reason and faith to be long over”.1 But Harris is not happy with these intellectuals. He is even less happy with the US National Academy of Sciences, suggesting that science and Christianity should get along, because they are answering different kinds of questions about the world.2 For Sam, this is not good enough; he wants the conflict to continue because, in his mind, science has already won.
The New Atheists cannot be accused of being relativists. But their attacks on Christian truth claims still need some careful relativising.
The New Atheists are not talking to Christians, but about Christians—to recruit fellow secularists in the campaign to silence the Christian voice in the public domain. So Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, New York, 2006), writes,
There are many kinds of truth.
This opening statement may cause rejoicing in the hearts of the many relativists who now populate western society. However, the statement is not meant to encourage relativism, but proper thought—and, of course, those two things really don’t go together.
Paul Grimmond: What’s it been like to write your first book? (more…)
A recent news item was profoundly sad and troubling. A man who had died in his bed possibly as long as a year ago, has only just been discovered. (more…)