Why New Atheism Thrives

Posted by Jonathan Brink
September 16, 2009

moon

A few months ago I was in Borders and picked up a copy of Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great.  I thumbed through it for about an hour digesting portions of it.  And I liked it.

Yep.

Let me explain.  There’s a reason why the New Atheism is thriving.  It’s not because of what Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris have written.  They’ve simply revealed what is already happening and provided a voice to it.  If they’ve done anything, it is to reveal the dissonance inherent in what we as followers of Jesus say as opposed to what we actually do. And when we create bumper stickers that say, “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,” we actually provide the evidence to their debate.

I think what I also took away from it was the idea that those who rail against Hitchens miss the point.  I walked away wondering if this was a case of two ships passing in the night.  From my historical understanding of atheists and from reading portions of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris’ work, the God they are railing against is in Dawkin’s own words, “A delusion.”  And I tend to agree.

You see much of the problem within humanity is not God but our image of God.  And when we get it right, as in Jesus, it works.  But when we get it wrong, as in the Spanish Inquisition, or even our religious ideological dogma that are shadow attempts to control people as example, its horrific.

I would love to someone from the ecclesia engage Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris with an ear to listen.  But to do so would mean confronting our own constructs about God.  It would mean owning our own bullshit factor that seems to rise in the presence of those who don’t agree.  It would mean humbling ourselves in such a way as to first listen because a human beings is speaking on the other end…and they just may have something good to say.

You see, when we outright excuse people like Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris we invariably reveal our own bias and cognitive dissonance as followers of Jesus.  Because to engage love is to listen.  It’s to see the God image in the other and validate it as true.  But if we excuse the other, we invariably validate the broken image Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris is railing against. Instead of revealing God’s image in ourselves we reveal the God delusion.

The only answer we truly have is humility in love. To reveal the true image of God in the midst of community. And that looks like Jesus.  It means owning our history and the reality that the historic church has brutalized people in God’s name.  And when we do, when we own the truth of our past, we will begin to have a healthy response to the critics.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
love

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • I agree with you to a certain extent here. I have no problems proclaiming the death of the modern "delusional" God. In fact, I'll do it with gusto. I agree with Dawkins (can't remember where he said it right now) that if that god is God then I have no interest in him.

    My problem is when these guys assume that all "religious" people are backwards thinking idiots beholden to that God and therefore not worth engaging in conversation. To be sure, many religious people have the same reaction to "new" (I'm not sure it's so new) atheism. That surely doesn't help either. But there are some folks out there who seriously want to engage in conversation (Philip Clayton is the most prominent one who comes to mind) and are dismissed simply because they are theologians studying a psuedo-discipline.

    So I agree with you. I just wish more people (on both sides) were willing to let their guard down and sit down and talk about these things.
  • Blake, I still think we need to own a little bit of that. When I was in college for example, we staged a "debate" between a Christian and an atheist. It was like throwing the Christian to the lions in reverse. I remember feeling sorry for the guy. Sometimes we're so interested in winning the argument that we fail to see how it destroys the person on the other end of the table.

    I understand that some may not be willing to come to the table but it is also fair to say that we may have scared them away.
  • I get that. Some of the circles I used to run in (and some I still do) seem only to be interested in crucifying atheists. To me, that is anti-Christian. So we definitely have an internal problem. And that sure doesn't make us look approachable to the general public. Some of us need to own that and get over our problems with difference before we even begin to think about engaging the other.

    I just think that when you have some people who have done that and are willing to enter into that conversation from the religious side and they are written off wholesale as intellectually inferior it makes it hard to move forward.

    I guess what I'm saying is that neither "side" needs to be let off the hook. Both need to be willing to see the other as the other. The more I think about it seems that real conversation can't happen until that takes place.
  • TheGoulieKid
    Jonathan, the ecclesia in the form of Doug Wilson is engaging with Christopher Hitchins. I'm not sure how much pure "listening" there will be, as per the title of the film, but there certainly is a level of respect from Wilson to Hitchins. The documentary is called Collision, and you can see the one minute overview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGPceR-pIs
  • Ghoulie, I don't doubt that there are those who are seeking out dialog.

    But again, it's kind of like this. Imagine someone harms you. And you hold onto that injustice for a long time. And then someone else comes along and seeks out dialog. But this person reminds you of that other person. They talk alike and act alike, and even speak the same language. The problem is not that the new person isn't genuine or well meaning in their dialog. It's that the old injustice has never been removed or acknowledged. And so the new person is always reading the world through this old injustice.

    And the only way true dialog can happen is when someone comes along and says, "Yes, we blew it." It is then that reconciliation can truly happen.
  • lunchboxsw
    Jonathan,

    I appreciate your effort and interest in atheism. I have often thought that the problem on our end is that of xenophobia, and a simple ignorance of their positions.

    To that end, I would encourage you to more than spend one hour in one book. I agree that it is something that needs to be a conversation where we first listen. There is so much baggage in this conversation on our end that any attempt at stating our claim, even in the kindest of ways, can come across as a ploy to convert.

    Listening also evens the playing field. Many atheists are former Christians and know the Bible much better than many of us do. They don't need to hear what we think, because they already know. We need to listen to THEM because other than knowing that they do not believe in God and they are evolutionists, we really have no clue what they really think about other issues.

    Another option is to do what I did: I spent the day among 300 atheists at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY (home of Answers in Genesis of the Ken Ham variety). After I wrote about it on my blog I had 13,000 people visit and over 100 comments by atheists. Many of them shared with earnest sincerity that they appreicated that a Christian would take the time and make the effort to actually understand their position. I have been overwhelmed by the response and have had amazing dialogue ever since.
  • I should have explained myself better. The one hour was not my first foray into atheism. One of my best friends is a former atheist and we have had many conversations around the topic.

    One of the most interesting books I ever read in fact was "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. It was a deeply important point in my life and the dialog through the book was fascinating. I walked into it prepared for this brilliant man to persuade me, and walked away more aware of my own faith. I chose to listen and felt strong for it.
  • lunchboxsw
    Excellent! I hope more Christians follow that example!
blog comments powered by Disqus