ATHEISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Dawkins:  [the] God of the Old Testament is “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:  jealous and proud of it. . . petty. . . unjust, [an] unforgiving control-freak. . . misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal. . .”

Hitchens:  “Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents.” 

Several thoughts:

• First, what has caused this seeming resurgence in atheism?  David Aikman suggests three reasons:

1. “Faith Fatigue” among skeptics and the hard-core left, who ordinarily make up 15% of the American population (and a much higher percentage in Europe).  After six years of evangelical resurgence, they have recovered and have come out swinging.
2. There is a backlash against evangelicals that has been brewing for years.  Evangelicals have been arguably triumphant, arrogant and often rather foolish in their pronouncements.
3. Some highly articulate evangelicals (e.g., Alister McGrath, Francis Collins in The Language of God, and Owen Gingrich, in God’s Universe) have laid down formidable challenges to atheists and they now seek to provide an answer. 

• Second, what is the worldview of atheism (aka humanism or secularism)?  Does it have a theology?  Despite the antisupernaturalism of modern humanism, this worldview still has a theology.  Here are its salient themes:

• Creation and the Universe.  Humanists contend that the physical world was formed from chaos and that only man’s reason has brought some order to this chaos.  There is no divine plan or purpose.  For the humanist, the only thing eternal is matter.  Carl Sagan, who popularized the humanist approach to science and cosmic evolution, argued that “The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be” [quoted in James Sire, The Universe Next Door, p. 63].  In some form all the matter of the universe has always existed.  Further, this matter has no relationship to any transcendent creator.  The universe as we know it is, maintains James Sire, is a closed system [pp. 65-66].  It cannot be reordered from anything or anyone from outside itself.  Of course, then, there is no transcendent God.  Because humans are matter and because there is no such thing as a soul (or anything supernatural for that matter), the laws of the universe apply to humans as well.  Humans do not transcend the universe in any manner whatsoever.  The universe is a closed system based on a uniform set of cause-effect relationships and humans are a part of that system.
• God.  Humanists insist that there is no personal God who created the universe or who gives any kind of meaning to the universe.  They also reject the idea of God as sovereign, as one who organizes and oversees the course of history.  As “The Humanist Manifesto II” asserts, “We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of the supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race.  As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.”  Thus, humans make their own history, without any master plan.  There is no accountability to God and no fear of judgment from Him. 
• Humanity.  The human race is a cosmic accident.  Humans come from nothing and when they die go to nothing.  But that does not mean man is insignificant; indeed, humans are the key to a better world.  “Humanist Manifesto II” contends that “reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that mankind possesses.”  That is why modern humanism believes that compassion, cooperation and community will bring about a better world.  For that reason, economic well-being is possible in a world of “shared human values.”  There is no such thing as eternity, so modern humanism affirms that happiness is the only core value for the humanist.

Humanism as a philosophy contends that “man is the measure of all things.”  In themselves, humans are the ultimate norm by which values are determined.  They are the ultimate beings and the ultimate authority; all reality and all of life center on human beings.  Curiously, although humans emerge from nothing and move towards nothing at death, somehow humans acquire supreme dignity.  Yet, despite the humanist’s belief in human progress, what is the real reason for hope?  Why should we affirm human dignity?  Why fight to solve the problems of racism, war or poverty?  Why does it really make any difference to focus on progress or focus on living for the moment now?  If nothingness is the ultimate destiny, then human dignity is an illusion.  Although emotionally satisfactory, humanism is intellectually dishonest and untenable.

For that reason, the issue of death remains a formidable problem for atheism.  “The Humanist Manifesto II” claims that “. . . the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context.  There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body.”  The only “immortality” for the human, says “The Humanist Manifesto II” is to “continue to exist in our progeny and in the way our lives have influenced others in our culture.”  There is no hope of seeing loved ones, of life after death or of an eternal destiny.  Humans live for the moment or for “influencing others.”

• Ethics.  Modern humanism maintains that there are no absolutes to guide humans in the ethical area.  “The Humanist Manifesto II” demands that “. . . moral values derive their source from human experience.  Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.  Ethics stem from human need and intent.  To deny this distorts the whole basis of life.  Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. . . We strive for the good life, here and now.”  For that reason, all human acts are ethically neutral, except for their influence on others for good or ill.  But human standards are constantly changing and fluid and vary from culture to culture.  Hence, humans must create their own standards and then live consistently with them.  Humanism rejects any dependence on absolute ethics; instead, sexual freedom, personal autonomy and the unbridled pursuit of personal peace and happiness are the vital center of the humanist’s ethical standard.

 
For decades, humanism was the dominant worldview in most colleges and universities.  It pervaded the discipline of science and informed the general approach to the humanities throughout western civilization.  It gives the impression of being objective, unbiased and modern.  Because modern scholarship has been so closely associated with humanism’s tenets, to disagree with it is to appear backward and naive.  The grip of atheism is powerful but it is filled with fatal flaws. 

Today, however, in the typical college or university, Postmodernism is competing with humanism/atheism.  Where humanism has generally argued that truth is knowable and certain, obtainable through the scientific method, Postmodernism steps away from humanism’s claim and argues that truth in any absolute or certain sense is not attainable.  For that reason toleration of all beliefs, worldviews and systems is the reigning tenet of Postmodernism.  Because both seek human autonomy with no accountability, the relativism and the pluralism of Postmodernism mesh perfectly with the antisupernaturalism of humanism/atheism.  The difference between the two is how each views the possibility of attaining absolute truth.

• Finally, consider the case of Anthony Flew.  A British philosopher who just turned 84, Flew was perhaps one of the West’s most influential philosophers and atheists.  His short 1950 paper, “Theology and Falsification,” remains one of the greatest defenses of atheism in the modern world.  However, Harper has just released an important book, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” written by Flew and Christian apologist Roy Abraham Varghese.  The book offers up the arguments that convinced Flew that there is a God.  Although Flew explicitly rejects Christianity, he has now embraced theism, belief in a God.  In short, Flew retracts decades’ worth of conclusions and arguments he had offered up to prove atheism.  In a recent article in the New York Times Magazine, author Mark Oppenheimer seems to infer, rather strongly, that Flew is at best senile and at worst suffering from some form of dementia.  He subtly, but firmly, suggests that Flew does not remember conservations, is no longer sharp and rational, and has been duped by evangelicals like Gary Habermas of Liberty University.  Some of the underlying inferences of Oppenheimer might be true, but the reality is that Flew has been slowly turning away from atheism for some time now and Gary Habermas has had 22 conversations with Flew.  An eminent philosopher has become convinced that there is a God, largely because of things he could not explain in any other fashion.  Assuming that Flew has made a genuine worldview shift, he represents the truth of Romans 1:18-19.  God has made His case through what He has made and you can reason your way to Him through an interaction with His creation.

Atheism is a bankrupt worldview that offers no hope or no purpose to the human race.  Its logical end is despair and hopelessness.  May God open the eyes and the hearts of those who embrace this tragic worldview.

See James P. Eckman, The Truth About Worldviews, Crossway (2004), pp.2023; David Aikman, “Puncturing Atheism” Christianity Today (November 2207); Mark Oppenheimer, “The Turning of an Atheist,” New York Times Magazine (4 November 2007).