They're not Post-modern. They believe in truth. Either Jesus was God, or he was not.
New Atheism is seeking to answer these questions:
Should science do away with religion?
What will science put in its place?
Can we be moral without God?
"The world should awaken from the long nightmare of religion" . . . New Atheists.
The New Atheism was said to have been founded because of 9/11. The events of that day are the result of religion. Even when confronted with the fact that those events were based on the fringes of religion, they state that fanatic religion thrives on the edges of moderate religion.
Richard Dawkins, "Atheists have no faith."
Christoper Hitchens, "Our beliefs are not a belief."
"These things are written in order that we might believe." Our belief is a response to evidence. A portion of our belief is based on the New Testament. We have trust in a person only if there is evidence for it. Our faith stems from the evidence provided in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole.
Faith is not strictly a component of Christianity. All scientists have faith in the existence of the universe.
Christian theism gives a basis for intelligible science.
New Atheism stakes much on the unacceptable face of religion, namely warring religion and violence. They speak of the Taliban and Northern Ireland. Our response should be that those who commit violence in the name of Christ act contrary to the words and actions of Christ. Even Pilate exonerated Jesus Christ from the charge of terrorism and fomenting rebellion against the government. In fact, the New Atheists should congratulate Christ for standing against violence.
If we are going to speak of violence and its causes what must we say of Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tsetung? All atheists! So on one hand they will attempt to exonerate religion. On the other hand they attempt to accuse theism.
The atheists throw all religions into the same pot. They compare the Taliban with the Amish. Do they want us to compare them with Stalin? All religions are not equal. There are huge differences between Christian, Bhuddist, and Muslim teaching.
Has science already destroyed God? Is he buried?
Beware the false logic of false alternatives.
"Thanks to the telescope and microscope science has destroyed the need for God." Christopher Hitchens. More false alternatives. It's as though we have to choose between the two. We don't. We should not confuse mechanism and agency.
The New Atheists claim the conflict is between science and religion. That's false. We don't have to reject one to claim the other. The conflict, rather, is between two world views. Theism and secular humanism. Science points towards God, not away from him.
Richard Dawkins argues with a scientific twist that God is not probable. The question is not, "Am I probable?" The question is, "Am I actual?" Do I exist?
Who created the creator? Richard Dawkins thinks this is the best argument in his book. We're automatically assuming that God was created. But we believe that God was not created. These arguments that seem so plausible, try applying them back to the people who comment on them.
Do we need God to be morally good people?
Dawkins and Hitchens seek to take a moral high ground over God. They want to maintain the liberties of western Europe while removing the basis for the liberties they enjoy, God and the Bible.
What will happen if we take atheism to its obvious moral conclusions? Violence
No comments:
Post a Comment