On the website of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, a question was submitted by an atheist who pointed out that "the popular atheists of today" often do not "present sound (or at least valid) arguments in the way that a philosopher such as yourself (or a philosopher-in-training such as myself) would like to see. . . .What do you attribute as the cause of this, with your experience in debate and discussion over the years?" William Lane Craig responds to the question by outlining many academics who are well-trained in their field of expertise but are not trained in philosophy. Even though they have not sought philosophical training, they occasionally attempt to write books advancing their philosophical view and, in many cases, it reveals a lack of awareness of what has happened in philosophy in the past couple hundred years. Even atheistic philosophers have noted this. For example, Quentin Smith has stated that Stephen Hawking's book entitled A Brief History of Time is "the worst atheistic argument in the history of Western thought" (Smith, 322). Craig went on to say, "Now if fine academics like these are out of their depth when it comes to philosophy of religion, how much more adrift are popularizers like Harris, Hitchens, and the like!" Craig points out a difference in approach between atheistic scholars and the New Atheists by saying, "What these popularizers don't understand is that if you read the work of non-theisitc scholars who are working in philosophy of religion, they don't treat theism with disrespect, neither do they greet Christians with derision." Contrary to the popular brand of atheism, atheistic scholars treat Christians with respect.
Upon closer examination, it is evident that the New Atheism movement is not simply a group of atheists. It differs from the atheistic philosophers on many points, but one of the main ways that it differs is its anti-religion elements--which contributes to the hostility. In an article, titled Learning from Christopher Hitchens: Lessons Evangelicals Must Not Miss, Al Mohler says, "Hitchens did not want to be confused with amateur atheists or with 'the generalized agnosticism of our culture.'" Hitchens seems to have made this clear in Letters to a Young Contrarian when he wrote that he was not so much an athiest as "an antitheist." Hitchens continues, "I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." The movement sees religion as harmful, and therefore, it responds to religion with hostility.
Unfortunately, this group is overlooking the obvious. In an article written by Christopher Hitchens titled Simply Evil he says, "The regimes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fully deserve to be called 'evil.'" Evil? For years Hitchens has been seeking to persuade that the idea of God is false, yet then he turns around and calls these regimes evil. According to Douglas Wilson,
Given the premises, what might the definition of that be? Who determines what is evil and why? By what standard? But there may be a wiggle-room word in there. Hitchens only said they deserve to be called evil. But that generates the same questions. By whom? And whoever that person is, how did he wind up in charge of our moral lexicon? Was there an election? Did I miss a meeting? And what weight does being called evil have?Wilson continues by following Hitchens's view to its logical concusion. He says,
If there is no God, then Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have no God. But if they have no God, then it follows that Hitchens is not their god either. And if Hitchens is not their god, why should they care what he calls them? There is no god, and Hitchens is not his prophet.Then Wilson shows that in order for justice to be served, there must be injustice. He continues,
Evil? Unless such men are treated as evil men, there is no justice. And if there is no actual justice (not paper justice, not name-calling justice, but actual justice), then there really is no such thing as evil. If there is no such thing as final justice, then how can we manage to define the concept of injustice? Hitchens wants to call them evil after they are largely out of ear shot. Let us all agree to call Stalin evil. On Hitchens's account of things, does Stalin care? Hitchens may counter that he fully intends to fight them. He fully intends to treat them as evil, and his article was a call to arms. All right then. Is evil then determined by who wins that fight? Does this fight have a referee? Is there a rulebook? Who wrote it?If there is no real justice, then there cannot be any such thing as injustice--or evil. Wilson points out that an obvious thing "about evil is that it is the kind of thing that requires a grounded definition. It is the kind of assessment that requires backing. If someone identifies something as evil, the questions why? and who says? are entirely reasonable questions. And the answer has to consist of something more substantive than simply repeating the charge that it is evil." Both sides can clearly see that evil exists, but as Douglas Wilson points out, "in order to stand against anything, however obviously bad it is, you must have something to stand on."
Why does this matter? For atheists, I would think that they would want to find someone to read or listen to who is informed about this subject. Also, those who are informed do not treat Christians with disrespect though they disagree and even debate them. For Christians, it is good to be aware of what is going on in order to have the ability to dialogue with those who do not believe in God. Admittedly not every unbeliever subscribes to the New Atheist movement but some do. Hopefully there would be mutual respect in a discussion such as this, and hopefully it could be done in a charitable manner. However, Christians must remember that we are "fools for Christ’s sake" (1 Cor. 4:10). In other words, Christians will be regarded as fools in the world. William Lane Craig eloquently states,
I am convinced that until a person is ready to swallow his pride and be thought a fool for Christ's sake, he is not ready to be fully used by God. Of course, it should go without saying that we should not in fact be foolish or second-rate in our scholarship. We should pursue excellence and take up Charles Malik's call to challenge secular scholars on their own terms of scholarship. We should be intellectually humble and ready to learn from our critics and open to their criticism. We may find that we have made mistakes and need to revise or abandon our argument. But in the end we need to be prepared to be ridiculed as fools for Christ's sake.Mocking and being considered fools for Christ is nothing new for Christians. It is to be expected since the same world crucified Christ (John 15:18-27). So, let us not be shocked when we are treated harshly or with disrespect. Let it build faith within us that the same words spoken by Jesus 2,000 years ago are still true. Let our hearts break for those who do not know God. Let us love them extravagantly and lavishly--even if we are met with persecution in return.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albert Mohler. http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/01/11/learning-from-christopher-hitchens-lessons-evangelicals-must-not-miss/ (accessed 6 May 2013)
Douglas Wilson. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/09/08/simply-incoherent/
Quentin Smith, "The Wave Function of a Godless Universe," in Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 322.
William Lane Craig. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/atheists-gone-wild#_edn1 (accessed 6 May 2013)
