Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Opinion|Mon, Aug. 11 2008 11:21 AM EDT

'Atheism Remix' - Understanding and Answering the New Atheism

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

Atheism is not a new concept. Even the Bible speaks of the one who tells himself in his heart, “There is no God.” Atheism became an organized and publicly recognized worldview in the wake of the Enlightenment and has maintained a foothold in Western culture ever since. Disbelief in God became part of the cultural landscape in the 1960s when TIME magazine published a cover story—“Is God Dead?”—that seemed to herald the arrival of a new secular age.

Nevertheless, atheists have represented only a small (if vocal) minority of Americans. Surveys estimate that atheists represent less than two percent of the population, even as the larger group of “unaffiliated” includes over fifteen percent. Atheists have published books, held seminars, presented their views in the media, and honed their points in public debates. As a worldview, atheism is over-represented among the intellectual elites, and atheists have largely, though not exclusively, talked to their own.

Until now. Get on an airplane, settle in for a flight, and observe what other passengers are reading. You are likely to see books representing a new wave of atheism as you look around the cabin. The so-called “New Atheists” have written best-sellers that have reached far beyond the traditional audience for such books. Books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have spent weeks and months on the best-seller list published by The New York Times. Clearly, something is happening.

The New Atheism is not just a reassertion of atheism. It is a movement that represents a far greater public challenge to Christianity than that posed by the atheistic movements of previous times. Furthermore, the New Atheism is not just another example of marketing an idea in the postmodern age. The New Atheists are, in their own way, evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope. They see atheism as the only plausible worldview for our times, and they see belief in God as downright dangerous – an artifact of the past that we can no longer afford to tolerate, much less encourage.

They see science as on their side, and argue that scientific knowledge is our only true knowledge. They argue that belief in God is organized ignorance, that theistic beliefs lead to violence and that atheism is liberation. They are shocked and appalled that Americans refuse to follow the predictions of the secularization theorists, who had assured the elites that belief in God would be dissolved by the acids of modernity. They have added new (and very important) arguments to the atheistic arsenal. They write from positions of privilege, and they know how to package their ideas. They know that the most important audience is the young, and they are in a position to reach young people with their arguments.

It becomes clear that the New Atheism has exploited an opening presented by significant and seismic changes in prevailing patterns of thought. In this light, the contributions of philosopher Charles Taylor become especially helpful. We must acknowledge that most educated persons living in Western societies now inhabit a cultural space in which the conditions of belief have been radically changed. Whereas it was once impossible not to believe and later possible not to believe, for millions of people today, the default position is that it is impossible to believe. The belief system referenced in this formula is that of biblical theism—the larger superstructure of the Christian faith.

In terms of our own evangelistic and apologetic mandate, it is helpful to acknowledge that only a minority of those we seek to reach with the Gospel are truly and self-consciously identified with atheism in any form. Nevertheless, the rise of the New Atheism presents a seductive alternative for those inclined now to identify more publicly and self-consciously with organized nonbelief. The far larger challenge for most of us is to communicate the Gospel to persons whose minds are more indirectly shaped by these changed conditions of belief.

The greater seduction is towards the only vaguely theistic forms of “spirituality” that have become the belief systems (however temporarily) of millions. These are people who, as Daniel Dennett suggests, are more likely to believe in belief than to believe in God.

The Christian church must respond to the challenge of the New Atheism with the full measure of conviction and not with mere curiosity. We are reminded that the church has faced a constellation of theological challenges throughout its history. Then, as now, the task is to articulate, communicate, and defend the Christian faith with intellectual integrity and evangelistic urgency. We should not assume that this task will be easy, and we must also refuse to withdraw from public debate and private conversation in light of this challenge.

In the final analysis, the New Atheism presents the Christian church with a great moment of clarification. The New Atheists do, in the end, understand what they are rejecting. When Sam Harris defines true religion as that “where participants’ avowed belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought,” he understands what many mired in confusion do not. In the end, the existence of the supernatural, self-existent, and self-revealing God is the only starting point for Christian theology. God possesses all of the perfections revealed in Scripture, or there is no coherent theology presented in the Bible. The New Atheists are certainly right about one very important thing—it’s atheism or biblical theism. There is nothing in between.

This is adapted from my new book, 'Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists' (Crossway Books), which has just been released and is available through your local bookstore.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.
___________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Looks like the Reverend Samuel Krouse plagerized some of this article when he wrote his article for the Colusa County Sun Herald.

    http://friendlyatheist.com/4110/did-the-reverend-plagiarize/

    I agree with Listbox, who wrote:
    "There seems to be so little kindness in Mr. Mohler's essay."

    I don't think he desires kindness towards atheists. I think he sees atheists as a threat to his profession... pushing the 4.6 billion dollar religion industry in America.

    I just don't buy it. I think he and all the religious leaders in the world are selling a product, and I want none of it. That's all there is to it.

    If he finds that threatening, that says far more about him than it does about me.

  • Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To clarify my last 2 paragraphs:

    Christ, God incarnate, walked this earth. His resurrection speaks of His innocence and His Divinity. Had Christ not walked this earth, than surely it could be said that no one has seen God, nor can understand Him...but with Christ, these statements are false and CHRIST IS denied at the expense of eternal life...

    So choose Life...for Christ only has returned to life and also promises life to those that believe.

  • Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    John 8:19
    Jesus answered, you know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known my Father also...

    John 8.24...
    for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins...

    John 8:39 ...
    Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God...

    Jesus Christ is resurrected. There were many eye-witnesses who attested to His resurrection. These were persecuted, but never convicted by either the Romans or the Jewish authorities of being liars.

    They did not gain anything in this world...and would have been foolish to die for a cause that is centered on the cross without having witnessed that Christ resurrected.

    Choose as you will. Believe what you will. But the reality of His life, His death at the cross and His resurrection, are truths that his witnesses would not deny, even in death.

    Christ, God incarnate, walked this earth. His resurrection speaks of His innocence and His Divinity. Had Christ not walked this earth, than surely it could be said that no one has seen God, nor can understand Him...but with Christ, these statements are false and denied at the expense of eternal life...

    So choose Life...for Christ only has returned to life and also promises life to those that believe.

  • Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Religion. It's a crutch for people who can't handle God.

    <quote>These are people who, as Daniel Dennett suggests, are more likely to believe in belief than to believe in God.</quote>

    Disbelieve in belief!

    Believe in nothing other than God... That's the wish. Beg for uncertainty and come to terms with your total inadequacy in anything outside your imagination. Pray not to change conditions, but to see things as they really are.

    Accept that your existence is not a creation of your will - you did not cause yourself to be born, nor did you construct the entire universe necessary for your creation to have been possible. Shatter the egocentricity that separates you from others, before you make pronouncements about "God" or "belief". How would you presume to know? "Knowing" is derived of those ideas received from others, so preciously claimed as "my own". Know nothing, and be humble. This means, if you do not love, at least be kind.

    There seems to be so little kindness in Mr. Mohler's essay.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:01 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 1

    This is, surprisingly, an even-handed and fair assessment of "new atheism." As an atheist, I get tired of reading theists' arguments that misunderstand or dishonestly portray the atheist point of view. Mohler may be an "opponent" but he seems to be an honest one.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steiner,

    I think you're making it overly complex and getting lost in the semantecs. My point was, it's not ex-nilo, so the vernacular 'something from nothing' is incorrect, as from the onset it was already there existing, the matter was already there and waiting to expand.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    agentorangex

    It seems to me that in fact when the word singularity is used, it would have been used precisely because the mathematics shows that density is infinite, truly infinite, as we understand it mathematically. Hence, the reason why we are not ascribing a volume and simply calling it a singularity is simply because the mathematics would show the volume not to exist. Otherwise we would be given estimates...the maths is there to estimate anything, at least mathematically.

    So, i am not so sure that things have flown over my head, as you like to put it. Perhaps, if they have, then they probably are flying over yours just as well...for if we are using maths to describe all of this, and we are forced to call something a point, in mathematical terms, than it is a point, without any dimension, without any volume...

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, I am just saying the common vernacular of 'something from nothing' of how the BB is wrongly described as being ex nilo, or matter from non-matter is wrong.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex

    Are you saying that if there are more singularities, then mathematically, they would be different from each other. That in fact the mathematics is able to show that some singularities are denser than others?

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "so if you are attempting to set up a straw man, in order to keep your religion...fine.."

    It's not my fault you're misunderstanding it, the BB never states 'ex nilo', or matter from non matter, it states the singularity was what constituted the universe prior to it expanding.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Are you saying that there isnt? "

    no, I am trying to convery what flew over your head earlier. it (singularity) was neither 0 in terms of size, and infinnite in terms of density, it has limits, but describing them in practical terms isn't as easy as saying infinitismly small. This is why is definately WAS something, and wasn't ex nilo, or something from nothing. The matter/energy was already there existing, it just hadn't expanded in 4 dimensions yet. Sure, ask why it hadn't expanded yet, but this would be like asking 'what god was doing all that time before creating the universe?', it would be to ignore the whole concept of TIME in the first place.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,

    I believe there is a problem with how you are now attempting to communicate infinite, and infinitesimally...

    I thought converse02 was trying to explain the reality or at least what is understood to be the reality by using two different words.

    Infinity occurs when deviding by 0. Infinitesimal occurs when dividing by something close to zero, but not zero. There is a difference.

    Are you saying that there isnt?

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange,

    now you are beginning to show your religious side...

    Common sense? no, I am just using a simple formula, to which we refer when using the word density. If you have found another, please let it be known.

    As my explanation of our definition of point...it is also acceptable mathematically..

    so if you are attempting to set up a straw man, in order to keep your religion...fine..

    but dont call it science.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steiner

    ",if the volume is zero, then the singularity is infinitely small...which means nothing, the vernacular nothing."

    No, no, no. When he's refering to 'infinitly small' and the density being 'infinite', he's not saying they are both without limits, and ergo coutner eachother out, nor are they 0 either, he's trying to portray how much matter/energy was composed in the singularity, and over what distance, it certainly wasn't infinity, but it was something akin to a sub-atomic particle (or smaller) as we know them know. It's quite are to exemplify in a meaningfull way how small it all was without describing it terms of being near infinitely small and dense, as for all practical purposes IT is the only measuring stick we have to know such relative measurements.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:34 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "To be able to speak of an infinite density and then make the assertion that the singularity was infinitesimally small does not make sense."

    I don't know how else to say it Steiner, but many things in Science are entirely counter intuitive and counter to typical 'common sense', but they are valid for the level of certainty they provide in succesive testing. True, atomic matter is fact 90% dead/open space. But how could this be you ask, matter looks entirely SOLID!

    Another example would be the movement of our sun, as from our earthly perspective it is SO obvious that the sun rotates around the Earth, but this as we know is wrong, as we know exactly why, again thanks to science.

    As Voltaire exclaimed, 'common sense is not so common' and this goes double for things in science.

  • Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Converse02,

    you noted:

    The "nothing" in a singularity has a different meaning than "nothing" in the vernacular. A singularity is "something" as it consists of intense gravitational pressure compressing matter into an infinite density. A singularity is "something" that is infinitesimally small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense. ---

    To be able to speak of an infinite density and then make the assertion that the singularity was infinitesimally small does not make sense.

    If the density is infinite, then the volume must be zero. Hence, if the volume is zero, then the singularity is infinitely small...which means nothing, the vernacular nothing.

    This applies with what we define as a point mathematically. It exists in our mind as a set of coordinates, but in reality it does not exist...It is a man made definition, conceived by our mind.

    So, my assertion of the vernacular nothing, at least when the volume is 0, is not incorrect.

    In fact I will go even further and point out that just like points are constructs of our imagination from which we draw and build our objects..

    So, a singularity can be defined as a construct which originated from nothing as God created from nothing..

    You can then tell me how unscientific I am for not wanting or willing to go further...and I will respond that I am not willing to stop studying the science...but just like a point is a construct of our imagination, and in fact we cannot go any further with it..but just accept it as it is defined... it may be just as valid to state that a singularity is something from nothing(the vernacular nothing)..

    Yet, a beginning.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry DP, the atom is not infinitesimally small, the proton(one of the nucleons) which is contained within the nucleus can be measured, its about an Angstrom and so can the quarks that make up the protons/neutrons in the nucleus(and lets not start on strings!), its not infinitely dense either in fact the nucleus of an atom compared to the actual size of it (the atom) has been compared to a fly in a cathedral, the atom in other words is cpmposed of empty space(relatively speaking). Its not infinately hot either(or at least it feels not to me at the moment), the heat of an atomic bomb occurs during to the breaking of the strong nuclear force within the nucleons.

    Best wishes

    Steve

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "A singularity is "something" that is infinitesimally small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense."

    So is an atom but it really did bang during WWII now didn't it.

    Also, density is a matter of perspective. There is the arguement of protouniverses. There is also the arguement that our galaxy is actually an expanding singularity in and of itself which may contain other singularities. (We'll leave quantum mechanics out if it for now!)

    The question comes when incomplete science is used to replace God. It's the "I caught a fish this big" then turns to dad and says right while his hands move much closer together.

    Science has not disproven the existance of God nor disproved the validity of the Bible. Those who think so make great leaps of faith to do so.

    Again, it comes down to a personal choice (and responsibility) for what one believes when facing the question of Christ. Either you accept Him at His word or you don't.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Stiener,

    I think what converse02 & Steve were attempting to point out was that although it was an expansion/explosion of matter/energy, when using the term *explosion*, this for some can be misleading as it implies it destroyed itself or something. This misunderstanding is also coupled with how people like you misunderstand it and think something came from nothing, (as you implied), which is also wrong as when in fact the singularity IS that something. You are basically erecting a strawman argument.

    * As regards to string theory and Mtheory...as opposed to me saying Godditit...You are trying to belittle me, as you miss my point. My point is that mans word is expressive and creative.*

    C’mon, get over it, he is not tying to belittle you, he is simply stating a scientific fact or nearly the obvious in that when one posits *goddidit* as an explanation, it is utterly useless as this cannot be falsified and therefore is an intellectual shrug of the shoulders, it is in essence appealing to magic in a sort. Saying goddidit answers nothing and explains nothing, it is nothing more than a statement, not an explanation.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Perhaps it is more appropriate to write:

    Christ is Gods incarnate Word, the very substance of God and man.

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What is Scripture to Christians?

    If we, as humans, aspire to speak words that convey ourselves in the most fluid sense..that is:

    we write poetry, we compose music...and we make plays in which people take part, in order to convey humanity and to draw it forth, for the sake of explaining who we are...

    so that those who witness these things are moved in their own humanity...and become conscious of who they are and, savour the very substance that is humanity..

    So then, Christ is Gods incarnate Word, conveying the very substance of God, so that Life may be given to those that would witness Him and believe in Christ.

    Will you receive Christ?

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Converse 2

    As regards to the Bible being old...and outdated for todays humanity...and then your pleading for understanding of atheists...

    I find the statement a bit arrogant, but nothing to get upset about.

    I disagree. Your very words(as to the Bible being old) bring to mind what was said by other atheists/agnostics.

    Communism, in fact, was a quest to build a new kind of brotherhood based on the foundation of atheism, the new religion.

    Mao and Stalin were the prophets of this movement...and now we know what they were about.

    They became the new gods, ready and willing to sacrifice the masses on the altars of their religion.

    Nietsche too had his prophet..Hitler, and the Nazis, who also knew that in order to become superhuman they had to unequivocally declare God to be dead. These were in direct opposition to Christ, who as God incarnate, died for us, rather than the other way round...

    What did these accomplish? By refusing Christs blood, they had to spill the blood of the masses. And this they were prepared to do without flinching...for having killed God, they were more than ready to kill millions of people just as well...

    Nothing new here...

  • Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:51 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Converse 02.

    I didnt say that a singularity is an explosion of a point in space. This is what I said:

    From the atheists perspective the universe came about from a singularity. ( the explosion of a point in space with no dimension) or in other words, from nothing.

    What I placed in brackets is not a definition of a singularity, but an explanation of how the universe came about. Sorry if it is a bit confusing.

    As regards to the use of the word explosion as opposed to the word expansion....

    an explosion is an expansion that occurs in an extremely short time. Perhaps, the universe is expanding now, but it is probably more proper to say that the initial stage was an extremely violent expansion that occurred in a very short time, in other words an explosion...

    As regards to string theory and Mtheory...as opposed to me saying Godditit...

    You are trying to belittle me, as you miss my point.
    My point is that mans word is expressive and creative.

    This does not say...man did it... and then releases me from explaining what and how it was done by man.

    But what it says, in fact, is that mans word speaks, not in just the simple sense of letters and sounds, but in a creative sense of bringing forth what we see, and not simply what we see with our eyes, but with our very desires, longings, our very soul..our very being.

    This parallels Gods Word, and His power of expression to bring forth as I see it in Genesis and Johns epistle.

    As a Christian, I am not afraid, as you wish to imply, of studying Gods work, and expanding our scientific understanding.

    In fact, it is unChristian to avoid studying Gods work. Scientists such as Maxwell prayed daily in Christs name that God would grant them the power to understand His work...

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Steiner

    A singularity is not an explosion of a point in space. It didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. It wasn't an explosion either, but an expansion, "inflation," that is still going on. The "nothing" in a singularity has a different meaning than "nothing" in the vernacular. A singularity is "something" as it consists of intense gravitational pressure compressing matter into an infinite density. A singularity is "something" that is infinitesimally small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense.

    Scientists are revealing what was before the Big Bang in quantum cosmology, string theory, M-theory and working on ideas like cyclic universe. Evidence and more data will come soon with the exciting opening of a new supercollider at the Frano-Swiss border, the LHC.

    What is coming out in science is grand and more meaningful than you saying you have all the answers with "Goddidit." Most atheists have reflected on the Bible and regard it as wisdom from our primitive ancestors, but flawed and not divine. If you try to understand science and atheists more, perhaps you can appreciate where we are coming from.

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Steiner

    From a cosmologists perspective (whether they be athiest, christian or whatever religion you choose) there is a lot of speculation about what state the universe originated from, maybe it was a singularity but there are other thoughts on this matter as well, we can really only say what happend after 10E-42 seconds.

    You might find it interesting to know that the origin of the idea of the big bang was with a Catholic priest in response to Hubbles discovery that galaxies where moving apart from one another, so I'm not certain where you get the idea it is an "atheist perspective" .

    Kind regards

    Steve

  • Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    From the atheists perspective the universe came about from a singularity. ( the explosion of a point in space with no dimension) or in other words, from nothing.

    Christians have been taught that His Word called the universe forth from nothing.

    The atheists proudly go on the offensive declaring how much more meaningful and scientific their belief system is..depreciating and ridiculing the Biblical view as a means of argument.

    If they would only consider mans word, and its power of expression, which has ultimately brought forth mans own developments...

    then reflect on Gods Word...and the creative power of His expression, and it follows that the universe was brought forth from nothing, by His command.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links