As indicated in a recent article in Christianity Today[1], the New Atheists who rose in popularity back in the early 2000’s have seen a rapid decline in acceptance over the past decade. The article points to a rejection of the vitriolic stance held by the New Atheists and a growing appreciation for the value of religion in society. I think an additional reason for this rejection not mentioned in the article is the flimsy argumentation utilized by the New Atheists which has failed to make their position compelling.
In his attempt to dispel the value of religion in culture, Richard Dawkins made the claim that “Faith is belief without reason or evidence”. This is an excellent example of trying to win an argument by controlling the definition. In order to convince people that religion is a farce, he perpetrated an informal fallacy known as a strawman argument – refuting something by mischaracterizing it.
While Dawkins and others offer science as a preferable alternative to religion, it should not go unnoticed that scientists do their fair share of belief holding sans evidence. Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin is noted for his candor when he wrote, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[2]
It is fair to concede there are people of all sorts (not just religious) who believe in things without evidence, but does that necessarily characterize every religious adherent? A brief examination of Christian faith will find that claim wanting. Christianity has a long history from the apostles and early church fathers to modern day adherents of upholding reason and evidence as a component of faith. The biblical writers themselves make this clear.
The prophet Isaiah makes charges against the nation of Israel for abandoning their faith in God, and insists they have given up reasoning to do so when he says, “come now, let us reason together”, and “let us argue together; set forth your case, that you may be proved right”[3]. He is confident they do not have a solid case. Isaiah castigates the Israelites for the irrational trust they have put in idols made by human effort – made from the same piece of wood they use for fire to warm themselves and cook their food[4].
In the New Testament, we see the church spreading throughout Asia minor enfolding both Jews and Gentiles into the Christian movement. While the success of the Christian movement cannot be attributed to human efforts alone, dialogue and argumentation certainly had a part in it. The apostle Paul “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there” (Acts 17:17). In the matter of sharing one’s faith Christians are exhorted to, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).
Fundamentally, Christian faith rests entirely on evidence. The apostle is very forthright in stating, “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:13-14). The members of the early Christian movement were motivated, not by warm feelings, but solid facts about an actual, verifiable historical event – the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.
Luke records that, “After his suffering, [Jesus] presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). The apostle John was intent on making it clear what the early disciples experienced was not some hallucination. He wrote, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (1 John 1:1).
Modern Christian apologists resonate with the need for clear, rational thinking and an evidence-based faith. C. S. Lewis wrote, “God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you, you are embarking on something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all…Anyone who is honestly trying to be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened.”[5] Christians are not expected to leave their brain at the door.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the actual scope of faith. Faith certainly involves belief, but it entails more than that. James, the brother of Jesus observed, “But someone may well say, ‘You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’ You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.’ (James 2:18-19) Belief is simply assenting that something is true – that it corresponds with reality. Whether your actions are influenced by what you know to be true is another question.
Faith is more accurately a sense of trust or confidence in what one thinks is true which is great enough to move one from mere mental assent to a point of action. The type of belief which instills confidence and yields action requires more than wishful thinking. This is especially true when one’s belief leads to hardship, suffering and even death.
Many religious groups can point to their martyrs who died because of their commitment to what they believed to be true. The New Atheists suggest that Jesus was merely human and did not come back from the dead – that the early Christians were promoting a deception. Many have died for what they believed to be true, but nobody would die for what they knew to be false.
Dawkins further weakened his claim when he added to his definition of faith that, “coincidentally, that is also the definition of delusion.” This is mounting a strawman on top of strawman. Dawkins needs to buy a dictionary. Delusion is more precisely a belief in something which is false, particularly when that belief persists despite being presented with clear evidence contrary to that false belief. It is possible to have a true belief even though one may not possess the evidence to support it. So, it is not the lack of evidence which results in delusion, but the presence of evidence.
While the New Atheists insist upon beliefs supported by evidence (which is good), they hold a double standard for evidence. They want clear, testable, objective evidence for the existence of God, yet trust only in human sentiment as evidence for the non-existence of God. They typically point to suffering and evil in the world as their evidence for God’s non-existence. While that is truly a concern to be addressed by any worldview, it does not rise to the level of objective evidence.
I do not think the New Atheists are prepared to receive what they are asking for. Lewis wisely observed: “I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world … it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side.”[6]
When it comes to the ultimate questions about life, the question is not whether you have faith or not, but what is the object of your faith, and whether there are good reasons to motivate it. It is a challenge for all people – religious and non-religious alike – to think about what we believe and what we put our confidence in for both this life and beyond.
[1] Stefani McDade, “New Atheism Is Dead. What’s the New NewAtheism?”, Christianity Today, August 14, 2023.
[2] Richard Lewontin, New York Times Book Review, January 9, 1997; italics are mine
[3] See Isaiah 1:18 and Isaiah 43:9, 26
[4] See Isaiah 40:19-20, 44:9-17
[5] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Book III, chapter 2)
[6] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Book II, chapter 5)
Cicada Song 