The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity

Richard Dawkins's angry, ignorant and dismissive book `The God Delusion' [2006] has spawned a huge number of critical responses of varying length, perspective and perspicacity. Dawkins dismisses them all as `fleas', implying that he is the king of the jungle who has no need even to consider, let alone answer his critics. He knows best. It is, of course, his dismissive arrogance towards all who dare to disagree with him that endears him to his faithful band of acolytes; but at the same time it gives pause to the thoughtful layman who is not so easily swayed by outrageous braggadocio. Many have pointed out that Dawkins relies on dodgy sources when criticizing his opponents; that he has a lamentably poor understanding of philosophy and an even poorer knowledge of Christian theology. Who but an ignoramus could possibly accept his outrageous claim that theology has not developed in sixteen hundred years? Has Dawkins actually studied theology? No, and he is proud of the fact: he considers it a non-subject that should be banished altogether from the University. Though he held for some years a Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, Dawkins is committed to the ideology of SCIENTISM: something entirely different from science, which is properly understood as the systematic and disciplined investigation of the natural world. Scientism, on the other hand, insists that only science, narrowly conceived, can yield reliable knowledge about anything. The rest is dismissed as mere superstition or window-dressing. I cannot claim to have read all the many rejoinders to Dawkins; but of the dozen or so full-length treatments I have read, this book by David Marshall is one of the best. It is wide-ranging, well-informed, well-written, well-referenced, erudite and urbane. Marshall is an American Christian from an Evangelical - but far from Fundamentalist - tradition. Rarely, among those who come from such a background, he also has wide first-hand and in-depth knowledge of Eastern religions, especially Taoism, on which he has published informative studies. What he sets out to do in this book is examine the authors of the so-called `New Atheism' against the historical and cultural background which gave rise to them. He deals with philosophical questions arising from evolutionary biology, questions of the ethics of belief and unbelief, the history of Christian involvement in social justice, and how the contribution from faith-perspectives aids our understanding of the world. David Marshall brings to this work an impressively broad knowledge and understanding of matters related to history, science, theology and philosophy. He never wastes a word. Indeed, I could at times have wished a sentence expanded to a paragraph and a paragraph to a chapter. But that would have made the book very large and unwieldy. Still, it is a virtue that an author leaves one wanting more, not less. Within his chosen compass, however, Marshall has succeeded as well as a

"The Truth Behind the New Atheism" by David Marshall I've made time between my other readings in Logic and Philosophical subjects to study David Marshall's book. Marshall covers good ground in the Introduction, where he identifies that the "New Atheists" advance SEVEN ARGUMENTS. (1) Faith is IRRATIONAL (2) Evolutionary Theory is sufficient to dismiss the proposition that a Divine Being exists. (3) The Origin of Religion can be explained by Biological Evolution and Social Evolution. (4) The Bible does much to harm humanity, and moreover, it is merely a "jumbled aggregate of theological cullings" ...etc. (5) Jesus Christ was merely MORTAL. (6) American Christians are a threat to DEMOCRACY. (7) In summary, Marshal addresses the proposition of the Atheists that the world would be better off without the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and without any religion. The subject is deserving of some attention, because the "New Atheist" authors, represented prominantly in the publications of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and Steven Weinberg, et al, cover a vast expanse of ideological propositions and they have achieved popularity. -------------------------------------------- I had to laugh when I read Marshall's characterization of the "Blind Faith" Christian as proposed by the New Athism. As Marshall expresses it: "Whatever dead white theologians or ivory tower intellectuals think, "real" Christians believe for no good reason, as everyone knows."--p. 23 (bottom paragraph), "The Truth Behind the New Atheism". Every now and then, Marshall expresses himself in this lucid, "down home" fashion, which shows an innate sense of humor about general propositions; and then he gets down to the historical context of the question, and either identifies the religious facts of the issue, or offers a counter proposition by way of reason. For example, he will quote modern scientists who are skeptical of the philosophical absolutism proposed by the New Atheists, because they certain do not speak for all scientists. Other authors have identified with accuracy, the distinction that must be included in such discussions, and Marshall touches upon this also. The New Atheist authors are writing books which are not, strictly speaking, Scientific papers. It is correct to identify them as forays in philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of Metaphysical Materialism, which often is erroneously confused with Science itself. ----------------------------------------------- Overall, Marshall is very convincing in his handling of the accusation that Christians base their belief on BLIND FAITH alone. This is an essential criticism by the NEW ATHEISTS. It is demonstrably false. The author demonstrates that from early Christianity, the Fathers of the Church (such as St. Augustine) established a RATIONAL basis for FAITH. The S

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. These have now become almost household names. They are some of the leading figures in the New Atheism brigade. These are militant, dogmatic atheists who are on a search and destroy mission when it comes to religion. They seem to despise faith and people of faith, and are conducting a holy war to convince us that only atheism is tenable. This volume explores some of the main themes, contentions and accusations being made by the new atheist crusaders. Written in a witty and easy to read style, Marshall takes on the various claims made by these unholy warriors, especially their anti-Christian diatribes. He fairly yet firmly interacts with these men, showing that they stand on much shakier ground than they realise. Consider some of the many criticisms made by the neo-atheists. One common charge is the claim that religion in general and Christianity in particular is unscientific, irrational, and simply based on blind faith. For example, the atheists claim that Christians rely on ancient and discredited eyewitnesses. But as Marshall reminds us, almost everything we know is based on the testimony of others. The claims of the Gospel writers can be assessed and evaluated just like we weigh up the evidence of any other eye witness. The Bible often "appeals to reason, empirical facts, and experiment". Christians are not to just take a blind leap of faith, but to examine the evidence and test the truth claims being made. Faith in fact is a settled conviction based upon adequate evidence. Also consider the claim that science and faith inevitably conflict. But is this so? Marshall cites sociologist Rodney Stark who notes that of the 52 greatest scientists between 1543 and 1680, almost all were "devout believers," with only two being sceptics. Even Darwin relied heavily on Anglican natural theology. Thus evolutionary philosopher Michael Ruse can argue that "without Christianity, I doubt we would have Darwinism." Western intellectual history was largely Christian history: "Every great European thinker from John of Paris to John Locke was steeped in the Bible". Another contention of the atheists is that religion is the natural product of the evolutionary process. But the universal and persistent place of faith in the human community does not fit well in evolutionary thinking. Why do only human animals have this longing for the transcendent? "Do gorillas tell ghost stories in the night?" asks Marshall. "Do chimps see King Kong in the clouds? When Fido is unfaithful, does he do penance?" If evolution wanted us to be religious, why not animals as well? Why only us? The new atheists also think religion is immoral, and yet believe that atheism can account for morality. But as Marshall says, even Dawkins admits that its "hard to squeeze out-group altruism from the evolutionary rocks". Dawkins does speak of the upward climb of morality. But he seems to have no basis for it given his worldview. Marshall rightly asks, "What