BACKGROUND
The New Atheism is a name given to a movement represented by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, all of whom wrote best-selling books that were highly critical of religion [1].
Although the New Atheism does not eschew the classical arguments against the existence of God, its focus is primarily on the immorality and harmful consequences of religious thinking itself. For some, the New Atheism is not merely atheistic, but also anti-theistic [2].
Another main feature of the New Atheism is a secular apocalyptic outlook born out of the events of September 11, 2001. A secular apocalyptic outlook refers to the view that religion has the potential to destroy humanity and our entire biosphere.
However, many secular and religious critics of the New Atheism have charged the New Atheism with a number of flaws. One is a lack of expertise in scriptural and religious studies that has led Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens to make pronouncements that are rightly viewed as simplistic or inaccurate in some cases.
This situation has led to the perception that the New Atheism has no experts in scriptural and religious studies that could challenge religious counterparts with as much or more expertise. Others have conflated all New Atheists as followers of a neoliberal or capitalist ideology. Still others note that all the representatives of the New Atheism are white males.
Accordingly, there is a need to identify a Second Wave of the New Atheism. Such a need was discussed briefly in Hector Avalos, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), but it received no elaboration [3].
Just as I was beginning to think my book publishing days were over, thinking I had personally written all the books I had in me, I submitted a proposal just to test the waters one last time, and lo and behold it was accepted for publication! This happened just when I was beginning to think Randal Rauser had successfully minimized my influence. *Whew* THAT was a very close call!! NOT! More details will follow in the months to come. It makes me happy to make Rauser happy, and Marshall, and Lowder, and Reppert, and even Parsons!! David Marshall will now have at least two future books of mine to review, er, trash on Amazon, while Lowder will still be bookless to speak of, and will still be pleading for William Lane Craig to debate him. Dr. Craig, debate him for Pete's sake. Make that BS in computer science stop whining! Maybe I'll just keep on publishing books to keep them all happy...especially Marshall.
For the record I do not take kindly to bullies. Never have, never will. If you want my disdain then try bullying me. It motivates me. It really, really does motivate me. I can't explain why, maybe it comes from my potty training days. ;-) What I know is that I was born for this, for if this is not who I am, I wouldn't be doing what I do. All I can say is keep it up. It's like pouring gasoline on the fires of my passion. You should all be congratulated, or something!
Steve Stewart was a music pastor in a large Evangelical church who's now a freethinker.
---------------
INTRODUCTION
For almost all my life I have been taught, have believed, and have taught others that the Bible from cover to cover is absolutely and infallibly true and inerrant, having been inspired by the Holy Spirit. This has been the position which I learned from my parents, our Baptist Church, my Mom’s Good News Club, my Presbyterian Church, the conservative Christian College I attended, the Evangelical Seminary where I earned my Masters of Divinity, and which I have held and taught through my many years of pastoral ministry. It’s why I received Christ as my Savior at a very early age, was baptized, and later ordained to the Ministry.
At various times during my life, I’ve had questions about things I have read in the Bible: things that just didn’t make sense or seemed pretty strange; or statements made in the Bible that didn’t jive with life as I know it. Being very strong on sound, orthodox theology, and always a defender of “true truth,” I just wrote off my misgivings and questions to simply not being able to understand the mind or ways of God. But someday – in heaven – everything would make sense and “we will understand it better by and by.”
I was known for championing “the truth” and disallowing worship songs whose lyrics were not consistent with Biblical concepts.
And then in 2012 something very disturbing and disconcerting happened in the life of our church. I just couldn’t make sense of what occurred. For the first time I was really disillusioned about the efficacy of prayer, for one thing. I began to wonder if God was really listening to His people bringing their deepest requests before His throne day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. And if God WERE listening, why He didn’t respond with an answer that would bring glory to Himself, His Name (reputation) and the Bride of Christ? So my first question about my faith became a momentous catalyst which brought many others to the surface – some of which I had buried for years, and others which came to my mind, one after another. I started to step back from long-held assumptions and presumptions and decided to be open and honest with myself regarding questions that “bubbled to the surface” in my mind.
Philosophy revels in argument substitution, according to which, whenever there isn't sufficient evidence then philosophers can substitute an argument instead. This must stop. If there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, then an argument on behalf of one way or another is a waste of time. Making an argument without the requisite evidence is unnecessary and earns philosophy its recognized irrelevance and subsequently its derisiveness. Where there isn't sufficient evidence for an idea then a truly wise lover of truth would simply say "I don't know" and not write an article on it. It's this lack of authenticity among philosophers that galls so many non-philosophers, especially when believing philosophers muck up the discipline by writing in defense of their sect specific religious beliefs that by their very virtue have little or no evidence for them.
I hope the next year is better than the last year. I especially hope for the continuing secularization of the world. Place links and comment below on the the best of 2015, and with it the hopes you have for the future. Have at it. Hope is good.
In what follows is a smack-down of the entire edifice of David Marshall's apologetics (not that he will be convinced of course). Christian apologist David Marshall has repeatedly argued that "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony." He does so to put the vinyl siding of scientific respectability over the rotting wood of his faith. He rhetorically asks, "How many eyewitness testimonies were confirmed by DNA evidence?" His point is that DNA evidence doesn't confirm eyewitness testimonies, but rather that the human testimonies of scientists confirm the DNA evidence. That's because they saw it and they interpret it for the rest of us. This is crucial for Marshall's defense of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, and the claims of miracles in today's world. Human testimony is what both science and his faith depend on for truth. If we can know from the human testimonies of scientists the truth about the world, then we can also know from human testimonies the truth about the Easter Event and miracles in the modern world.
What's there not to understand atheists? Checkmate!!
Religion is associated more closely with societal dysfunction than societal health. Although religionists imagine themselves and their spawn as being more moral, tolerant, and generous-- when you actually measure such things, you find that the opposite is true. Again and again, the more secular the society, the healthier... the religious are only moral in their minds.
If you want to know what is actually true, you might try getting your information from scientists and other peer reviewed sources-- not people who imagine themselves saved for what they believe: Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth.
So what are we supposed to be applauding the Christians for again? Is there any measurable evidence whatsoever that they are better, righter, or that their beliefs are more true or useful to society than conflicting religions/myths/superstitions? Because all I find in peer reviewed sources is tons of evidence showing the that religion is associated with dysfunction while secularism is associated with more tolerance and more prosocial behavior.
He's doing it on his blog and getting almost everything wrong. He did get it right that I wrote the book though. *Whew*