Albert Mohler Jr. on the New Atheism

Here's what Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and author of Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists (Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008), has to say about the 'eight hallmarks of the New Atheism [...] that set it apart from older forms of atheism and that frame its challenge to Christian belief' (p.54).

1) The New Atheism is marked by an unprecedented new boldness. Unlike other forms of atheism, which in a way betrays some sense that something important has been lost (for e.g. "the Victorian Loss of Faith" - the slide from Christian belief present during the Victorian era which was accompanied by a sense of mourning and loss), the New Atheist has no such sense of loss, and is instead characterised by a 'cultural cheerfulness'. "The New Atheists seem genuinely to believe that God is dead, but that humanity can now move cheerily along into a brave secular future." (p.23). Along with such cheer comes a sense of boldness and determinism to attach on what they see as the pretensions of theism.

2) There is a clear and specific rejection of the Christian God of the Bible. Note here that the attack is not against some philosophical notion of a supernatural being or the evil of a God who does not prevent moral evil, but rather the attack is specifically against the God of the Bible. It is evil to believe in such a God, they say. A huge part of it has got to do with the fact that majority of people are going to be in eternal torment in hell. "By any measure, [...] such a God is an evil God, and those who would believe in such a God are themselves evil." (p.56).

3) The New Atheists explicitly reject Jesus Christ. Christopher Hitchens views that the book of Revelation presents Jesus as far more vengeful than the God of the Old Testament. Sam Harris states that Jesus clearly believes people are going to hell. Richard Dawkins believes belief in Jesus creates restrictivism - an "in" group and an "out" group, and any thing that promotes such restrictivism is problematic.

4) The New Atheism is specifically grounded in scientific argument. Three of the four main proponents of the New Atheism are scientists by training, and they are explicitly committed to scientism - believing that science must explain everything that is explicable, resulting in a worldview that is naturalism and materialism. Another entailment of their scientism is also that they see science as the way of liberation, the way of freedom, and the way of enlightenment. With such thinking, they see Christianity naturally as an obstacle blocking the way. In my mind, this is one of the points that makes the new atheism so dangerous - it combines the conclusions of the philosophical atheism of someone like Nietzsche, who saw the death of God as necessary for the emergence of the truly free and strong human being, with a scientific explanation so as to make the idea of the death of God actually seem possible and valid.

5) The New Atheism is new in its refusal to tolerate moderate and liberal forms of belief. This point is interesting because the New Atheist see liberal Christianity as on the same side as just as dangerous as conservative Christianity. "They [the liberals] are just enabling the fundamentalists - the real believers - because they are able to fly under the radar, covered by the moderates' popularity and tolerance." (p.61). Mohler is right to conclude from this point the lesson that accommodationist theism gets one nowhere and impresses no one.

6) It attacks toleration. Here, it is interesting again that the New Atheist consider freedom of expression too dangerous, as it legitimates the kinds of belief systems that are dangerous (e.g. Christianity). Sam Harris even states that religious toleration is an experiment that has become 'too expensive'. Here, the viciousness of the New Atheism is seen. It is not only trying to force Christianity into a quiet little corner and domesticate her there, but it is going all out to knock the living daylights out of Christianity and throw her out of the boxing ring. And the New Atheist will do this even if it means going against the postmodern ethos of tolerance and acceptance and relativism.

7) The New Atheists are questioning the right of parents to inculcate belief in their own children. They, especially Dawkins, see this as child abuse. In today's political and cultural climate, such words if framed cleverly in terms of the child's rights and protecting the child from harm, can be very potent and deadly words. Rings straight against the commands of Scripture to instruct our children in the ways of the Lord (Deut 6:4-9, Eph 6:4). If they win the political argument in this area, the impact and structure of the family unit will also be adversely affected. What role do parents then play if what traditionally has been recognised as their prerogative in terms of passing on values and traditions is now seen as criminal and an act of child abuse? Who then will take over the passing on of values and provide the context for our children to grow up in? The state? Culture?

8) The New Atheists argue that religion itself must be eliminated in order to preserve human freedom. "Freedom is the one great good for these secularists, and thus any restriction on human freedom is by definition wrong. In their view, humanity can never be free if the authority of God and church are not overturned." (p.63). Seems like freedom in modern day discussions has been elevated to the supreme good. But have we really understood freedom? (See my earlier post)

These are the eight hallmarks of the New Atheism, as presented by Mohler. And this is probably the best part of his book where we see his analysis at its sharpest and its best. In the rest of the book, Mohler goes on to trace responses from others to The New Atheism - from a Christian scientist and theologian (McGrath) to a Christian philosopher (Plantinga) to theologians who embrace a more revisionist and accomodationst form of theology (Tina Beattie and John Haught). While providing a good summary and overall good insight into their approaches, Mohler is right to say that ultimately,

"the burden of our concern is not merely to refute atheism or to argue for the intellectual credibility of theism in any generic or minimal form. Instead, our task is to present, to teach, to explain, and to defend Christian theism. On this point, the defense of biblical theism reveals the great divide in intellectual thought to be not merely over the existence of God but over the question of whether he has spoken. The materialism and naturalism that are so central to the New Atheism simply reject the category of revelation out of hand. This, in the end, is the real impasse. The issue is not merely metaphysics, but epistemology." (p.84-85)

Here's where I wish Mohler would say more. Having teased out the way forward, it would have been wonderful if Mohler went on to propose a method or way of engaging with the New Atheist with the above conviction in mind. Unfortunately, he doesn't (to be fair to him, that may not have been the intention of the book. But it does one feeling a sense of despair, in that we've seen the problem, we've been pointed to the solution, but have absolutely no idea how to move towards that way). Thinking further, in reality, I think it would be hard to convince a New Atheist of a speaking and revealing God. We would first have to fight the uphill battle of convincing him there is a God to be begin with! And here, the scientific arguments and philosophical arguments of McGrath and Plantinga would help. Having established the grounds for the possibility of God, it would then be more natural to take it to the next step that such a God actually has spoken and revealed. Another angle that also could be explored in engaging with New Atheist is through that of worldviews. How coherent is the New Atheism worldview? What are the consequences that it leads to? Think though these questions through the lens of the New Atheism worldview, and then challenge the New Atheist to consider the Christian worldview, revealed to us by a gracious speaking God, whose very words in Scripture form a storyline which provides nothing less than a comprehensive view of the world and this life we live in.