Have you heard of the new atheism?
There is nothing new about atheism; people have been denying the existence of God for a long time. What is new about the new atheism is that it is anti-theism. The new atheism is not just disbelief in or denial of a supreme being who created us and to whom we are accountable, it purports that belief in a supreme creator to whom we are accountable is evil.
R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, author, and keeper of Dr. Mohler’s blog, writes about this in his book Atheism Remix.
The new atheism is different in its position and, perhaps more importantly, is different in its proponents. Historically, atheism’s proponents have been on the fringe and no one paid much attention. Our world was decidedly theistic. While not all believed in the true and living God, the majority had a theistic worldview and atheism didn’t get much of a hearing.
Philosophers tried and failed to run God out of our thinking, but naturalism has been more successful. What philosophy could not do, science has done. After all, empirical evidence that disputes the biblical account of our origins must cause us to reevaluate. If the naturalists are right and there is no creation, then the next step becomes a very small one.
(It is not my purpose here to argue the methodology or conclusions of naturalistic scientists, but I will say that all too often their conclusions have preceded their evaluation of the evidence, and much of their methodology has been built around their conclusions.)
Atheism is not on the fringe anymore. The new atheism has rock stars, guys who are selling books and have a place in the media. Four men in particular, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, who Dr. Mohler poetically calls “The Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse,” are writing books popular enough to be stocked at your local Borders.
This Christmas I received a book entitled Is Christianity Good for the World? It is a debate between Christopher Hitchens, anti-theist, author and one of the new atheism’s stars, and Douglas Wilson, Christian theist, pastor, and author. I read this slim volume on Christmas day. I also received and watched the companion video, entitled Collision, that documents a series of oral debates between Hitchens and Wilson. I admit I read and watched from my own Christian theist worldview, owning a conclusion before opening the book or putting the disc in the machine.
So, why read and watch when my mind is already made up? So that I might be informed; and I was informed and encouraged.
Wilson made the point well that knowledge of truth is not limited to the empirical, but that there is revealed truth. We know the truth of the existence and character of God because He has revealed himself to us. The apostle Paul wrote: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Romans 1:18-21
Sounds like Paul had a pretty good grasp of the new atheism.
About Me
- Raymond Culley Carter
- Gresham, Oregon, United States
- human, Christian, husband, father, writer, preacher, amazed at the grace of God who saved me from the penalty for my sin by the finished work of Jesus Christ
3 comments:
Ray,
Great post. I must admit that as a younger man I struggled more with the seemingly implausible idea of a transcendent God. Imparticular it was 'the eternal' that I was doubting. A number of things helped me along the way, notably the maxim "from nothing nothing comes." I suddenly realised that the fact (empirical) that anything now exists necessitates that some thing has always existed. The Supernaturalist will claim that the something is God (or gods of some kind) , while the Naturalist must claim that Nature or some kind of material precursor to 'our Nature' has always existed.
In the end if the Supernaturalist is correct then man can be confident of a future destiny (continued exisitence) which logically depends upon and is subject to, the supernatural. If the naturalist is correct then the worst thing imaginable has occurred. Personality has sprung inexplicably out of the impersonal. And as Schaeffer points out in "The God who is there" we are as ill fitted for this world as a fish which "suddenly" grows lungs living on a planet built only of liquids and solids.
While the supernaturalist can logically hope for a future of some kind (and on that basis argue for ethical behavior in this life), the Naturalist must accept as his end absolute destruction - the cessation of existence, and the total absence of an ethical foundation.
Adam, Thank you for reading and taking time to comment.
Indeed, the concept that there is a God who is eternal and who created us and our universe, and who is transcendent – that is wholly other than us and our universe and wholly independent of us and our universe – can seem implausible, even impossible. What moves our thinking from this realm is that this transcendent God is also immanent – He is involved in His creation and He has revealed himself to those who He has created.
This is why we tend toward supernaturalism. Mankind has the vague notion that there is something beyond our natural world, yet this notion may or may not find expression in a deity. Indeed, many in our world are pantheistic, believing that God is everything and is in everything, thus believing in a “god” who has no distinct identity.
The true and living God has an identity; He exists as a particular being apart from us. He is transcendent; He is greater than and apart from creation. The true and living God has revealed His identity to us, and interacts with us. He is imminent; He is active in creation.
God reveals himself to us in the creation, yet He is not the creation. God’s greatest revelation of himself to us and greatest involvement with us was in the incarnation, becoming flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who took all of the punishment due us on himself and died as our substitute to provide the perfect and forever atonement for sin.
We must know more than our life exists beyond the natural world. We need more than a hope for a future of some kind. We must know this God who created us. We must know this God who has revealed himself.
Apart from Jesus Christ we are enemies of God. Apart from faith in Jesus Christ we will be separated from God eternally. All of mankind, every one of us, are born by nature children of wrath. All humans are born with a nature so corrupted by sin that no one is able to respond to God in any way other than open rebellion, and God’s justice demands judgment for our rebellion.
God has created us and rightfully makes demands on us. He demands that we believe – have an active faith – in Jesus Christ, in who He is and what He has done, and repent, turn away from our rebellion and submit ourselves to Him.
This seems impossible because it is impossible for us. We cannot violate our nature. The good news is that God intervenes and gives us a new nature. Ephesians 2:1-10 is one of my favorite passages in all of Scripture. Note that this is not written to everybody, but to those who have believed and repented. I submit it without further comment:
“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience – among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you have been saved – and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Ray,
Yes, good point, the immanence of God is essential, both practically and logically.
Practically because without God's intervention we cannot save ourselves (John 6:44), and logically because it is more reasonable (considering that truth does come from more than empirically provable sources)to believe that personality in man comes from a Being possesing personality, rather than from an impersonal, purely material, universe.
It would be expected then that this personal, though transcendent, God would desire to communicate with creatures that He had given the gift of communication to. Theistic systems, like Pantheism are devoid of a personal God, and leave us just as alone (though not quite as hopeless) as naturalism.
Even from a purely practical perspective I do not understand the logical framework for tearing down religion in our day. Dawkins has said that there is not even a shred of evidence for God. That is an unreasonable statement. The Natural Theology arguement that Paul makes as the foundation for man's accountability in the book of Romans is beyond sound - it is compelling. But even if it wasn't compelling what can be gained practically from removing God from society? Who would respond to the Haitians on the basis of "empathy" - the fall back of atheism. Why would I 'give way' to a fellow human being if I truly believed they came from nothing and are shortly returning there? The ideas of Dawkins and others would be the complete undoing of our culture. If one is compelled to believe as truthful what they preach I would better understand, but because it is far more reasonable and rewarding (though costly) to believe in a personal God who is communicating (even intimately) with man, their stubborn denial bolsters my faith because they seem to fit so neatly into that sad group "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."
Post a Comment