|The New Atheists and Remembering A Notorious Atheists’ Prayer/Part 2|
|By: Dr. John G. Weldon; ©2011|
|Alas, atheists never had a chance, including the so-called "new atheists" (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, etc.)|
The New Atheists and the old Sophistry
Alas, atheists never had a chance, including the so-called "new atheists" (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, etc.). They may sometimes write outwardly impressive and sophisticated books detailing irrelevant and ultimately hopeless arguments for atheism; nevertheless such books themselves remain a testimony to the existence of the very One they deny: the workings of a lesser mind can ultimately only originate from a greater Mind – hardly from the non-entities of absolute nothingness and pure random chance as incongruously claimed by both atheists and modern science. Because such illogic is accurately perceived by the average man, rather than a resurgence of atheism sparked on by the liberal academia, Marxists and the biased media, it appears that atheism is on the decline both philosophically and popularly (See the Recommended Reading). Dr. Flew himself refers to the "renaissance of theism among analytic philosophers." Despite their court victories (they suffer many losses as well) and the support of the cultural elites, the cause of atheism is suffering because it is such a poor one.
Through self-deception atheists may truly think there is no God, or do their best not to believe in God, but it's kind of like striking the earth with a hammer in order to send it out of orbit – a useless and hopeless endeavor. This isn't an Alice in Wonderland world where we can eat six elephants before breakfast; this is reality where we must live in the world God made, not a world of our own construction. Unfortunately, as a number of psychologists have shown, atheists tend to exhibit neurotic tendencies and the reason seems obvious – because they push so hard against reality that it's simply not emotionally healthy (see below).
Atheists simply can't win against theism philosophically, historically, scientifically, logically or otherwise because so much evidence runs contrary to their position. There always will be such evidence, and if science continues to advance, the evidence will continue to increase which means the atheist can never win. Not that he ever could, but modern atheism has pinned its star to modern science, especially the unfounded materialistic assumptions of modern cosmology and biology. It's alleged "ace in the hole" has today become its Achilles' heel and its very tombstone. The evidence for theism is now so strong scientifically, historically, philosophically and otherwise that atheism is on the way out, not theism, regardless of what supporters claim. If atheism is retained, it will only be retained irrationally and everyone will know it.
After all, take the Blue Gene supercomputer that accomplishes over 200 trillion calculations per second. Japan's "K Computer" (2011), now the fastest computer in the world, can handle over 8 quadrillion calculations each second, making it 40 times faster than the Blue Gene (or the power of about a million standard desktops.) But a single human brain can handle probably 1020 (100 sextillion) instructions per second (we don't really know) – and far more human brains have concluded God exists than not. If these marvelously constructed human supercomputers required the input of immense complexity and design, how to atheists or scientists logically argue that the human mind, which is a million times faster than the best supercomputer in the world, simply appeared from nowhere out of nothing, by chance?
The most advanced computer invented by the best human brains is probably a million times less efficient than a single brain, disregard the mind. Yet the combination of all computers and brains on earth are infinitely poorer than the mind of God. Is it logical for atheists think that God hasn't checkmated them from the very beginning?
Perhaps worst of all, the new atheists never even deal with the evidence – they not only fail to make a case for atheism but ignore the very data they should be objectively studying in order to decide the question fairly. Of course such an approach is something that must be promoted in order to "defend" atheism. Thus, straw men and red herrings are drug across the philosophical landscape as if they meant something. In the end, what the atheist must say is that absolute nothingness and pure chance – again, things which don't even exist – created everything that does exist in this universe that has a 30 billion light year diameter in which every square inch constitutes a miracle. Such an argument is only not credible, it's impossible and further, it's nonsense. If matter didn't exist forever, then the universe had a beginning but how could it begin from absolute nothingness and pure chance? It couldn't. But if matter existed forever how did exist forever and then do in time what it had not done forever? There are no other options. Something always had to exist: either God or the universe. To argue, as some atheists have, that the universe creates itself out of nothing only displays the tremendous desire to reject God. Believing in atheism requires a far greater miracle than believing in Christian theism – it requires a faith so blind it can't see the forest for the trees, and "audacious exercise in superstition." Even the very language atheists use to communicate their atheism requires God: they can’t see the miraculous nature of their own selves. Only God can account for the existence of the self and rationality, the mind, consciousness and life. In the end, whether new or old, atheists can't explain anything. The explanatory power of atheism is literally nonexistent (like its point of origins) whereas the explanatory power of Christian theism is full-orbed.
Further, the arguments of the so-called "new atheists" aren't really new nor are they any more convincing than the "old" atheists arguments: atheism fails at virtually every stretch and bend of its ageless river of unbelief, regardless of the terrain. Practically speaking, in harmony with the spiritual degeneration discussed in Romans 1, atheism often begins with a desire for immorality and the need to suppress the truth in order to justify ones preferred behavior. One can see this in the writings of many atheists. For example in The Making of an Atheist Dr. James Spiegel shows that atheists believe in atheism not because of convincing intellectual evidence but rather because of their immorality. In essence, disbelief can be reduced to personal rebellion against God. This theme is also documented in noted historian Paul Johnson's Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky; in Michael Jones Degenerate Moderns and by others.
To be sure, it's very hard to be an atheist, especially in the modern world, which may explain why so many atheists apparently have various forms of neuroses – the denial and constant need for suppression of reality simply runs too deep and eventually takes a toll, which logically leads to psychological problems. For example, in his seminal work, Tractatus Logico-Theologicus, the eminent scholar Dr. John Warwick Montgomery points out a truism: "Psychologists such as Paul Vitz (Faith of the Fatherless) have persuasively argued that God-denial is a psychological aberration, explicable by the unfortunate experiences of the atheists holding that viewpoint." (Christians of all people, who will forever have an infinitely loving heavenly Father, should be praying for atheists, whose frequent loss of a father often resulted, at least in part, in their atheism.) As one example, the noted existential psychologist Rollo May observed in The Art of Counseling, “I have been startled by the fact that practically every genuine atheist with whom I have dealt has exhibited unmistakable neurotic tendencies. How [do we] account for this curious fact?” Former atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz of New York University shows in “The Psychology of Atheism,” that atheists usually aren’t atheists because of rational concerns about God’s existence, or evidential problems with Christianity, but primarily for psychological reasons: they don't want to believe. He also knows this firsthand: “…it is now clear to me that my reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist-skeptic from about age 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual or moral integrity. Furthermore, I am convinced that my motives were, and still are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social scientists.….” He proceeds to discuss such things as academic peer pressure (a refusal to think independently), personal inconvenience and giving up sexual pleasures. "… in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time. Without going into details it is not hard to imagine the sexual pleasures that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer.” He cites the case of Mortimer Adler which is reminiscent of Aldus Huxley: the strong will to disbelieve. And he also observes the "neurotic basis of atheism."
Regardless, Dr. Anthony Flew was clearly one of the most prominent atheists of the last century and his conversion to theism resulted in an entirely new perspective on his old philosophy and the "new" atheists: nonsense. (For solid critiques of the new atheism, see the recommended reading.)
- ↑ Flew, There Is a God, 149
- ↑ Varghese in Flew, There Is a God, 173
- ↑ John Warwick Montgomery, Tractatus Logico-Theologicus, 2009, 2.6611; See Vitz in Note 6: "the pattern of a dead father is so common in the lives of many prominent atheists."
- ↑ Rollo May, The Art of Counseling (NY: Abingdon, 1967), p. 215.
- ↑ Paul C. Vitz, "The Psychology of Atheism," Leadership U, Truth Journal, July 14, 2002; http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Although not stated with the specific term, this is my opinion from reading his book and the specific critique of the new atheists by Varghese in Appendix A; also see e.g. Flew' s comments on pages 108-109. He describes scientific explanation for the universe as "vacuous," and citing Swineburne, "It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulate one entity (God) will do the job."