In recent decades, a fresh and aggressive movement has emerged upon the intellectual stage, often referred to as the “new atheists.” Unlike those who once quietly held unbelief as a personal conviction, these voices are openly militant, determined not only to reject belief in God for themselves but also to eradicate it from society. They are not content with peaceful coexistence between differing worldviews. Instead, they are on a crusade, to borrow their own confrontational language, seeking to persuade the religious through ridicule, mockery, and sweeping claims of rational superiority. This modern atheism is marked by hostility and evangelistic zeal — a strange irony, for in their campaign to silence faith, they unwittingly reveal their own missionary fervor.

Richard Bernstein, a cultural commentator, observed that the new atheists are “actively, angrily, passionately trying to persuade the religious to their point of view.” Agnostics, who once occupied an intellectual middle ground, are not spared, for the new atheists claim there is no room for doubt. To them, the matter is closed: there is no God. End of discussion. Such a position betrays not reasoned neutrality but dogmatic certainty, precisely the charge they hurl against religious believers.

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg once declared, “The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief. Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” This sweeping dismissal of religious conviction as a “nightmare” illustrates the animus driving the new atheist campaign. In their eyes, science must be weaponized to dethrone God and liberate humanity from belief.

Several of the books written by new atheists — whether by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, or the late Christopher Hitchens — have reached bestseller lists, fueled not so much by scientific rigor as by the frustration many feel toward the scandals of false religion. The hypocrisy of corrupt clergy, the violence justified under religious banners, and the cultural baggage of empty traditions have lent credibility to their rhetoric. Yet here lies the deception: the failures of men and counterfeit systems are used as a bludgeon against the very existence of God Himself.

Hitchens famously declared, “Religion poisons everything.” Such a sweeping claim is as unscientific as it is inaccurate, for it refuses to acknowledge the demonstrable good that true biblical faith has accomplished in history — from the defense of the oppressed to the establishment of hospitals, literacy, and social order grounded in moral absolutes. By conflating the horrors of false religion with the truth of God’s Word, the new atheists erect a straw man and then claim victory by its demolition.

Sam Harris insists that it is time to stop pretending, to cease tolerating what he calls the “mountains of life-destroying gibberish” in Scripture. He writes that political correctness must no longer protect religious belief from frank condemnation. The arrogance in such words should not surprise us, for the apostle Paul long ago wrote of those who “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). Denying the Creator while surrounded by the overwhelming evidence of His handiwork is not enlightenment, but the very folly Scripture identifies.

Has Science Done Away With God?

The new atheists assert that science has displaced faith, rendering belief in a Creator obsolete. Yet history and the testimony of respected thinkers reveal otherwise. For more than half a century, philosopher Antony Flew was one of the most prominent voices of atheism. His 1950 paper, “Theology and Falsification,” became one of the most cited philosophical essays of the twentieth century, and for decades he was lauded as the sharpest critic of theism. But in 2004, to the shock of his peers, Flew announced he no longer identified as an atheist. What changed? Not sentimentality, not religious manipulation, but science itself. Flew concluded that the evidence for design in the universe, the laws of nature, and the information encoded in DNA could not be explained by chance. The rational conclusion was the existence of an intelligent First Cause.

Physicist Paul Davies observed that while science excels at describing natural processes — explaining rainfall, gravity, or the orbits of planets — it falters before the foundational question: why are there laws of nature at all? Why does the universe operate under mathematically precise and universal regularities? Why does it exist in such a way that we can study, describe, and rely upon it? Albert Einstein himself referred to the laws of the cosmos as “reason incarnate.” To ask how these laws originated is to move beyond science into the domain of philosophy and theology. Flew came to recognize that only a rational Mind — the Mind of God — could account for such coherence.

Design always points to a designer. A house requires a builder. A coded message requires an intelligent source. The information-rich complexity of life defies reduction to chance and necessity. The human genome contains billions of data points organized with efficiency surpassing our most advanced technologies. To attribute such marvels to blind accidents is not only unsatisfying but irrational. As the Bible rightly declares, “Every house is constructed by someone, but He that constructed all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

Which Faith Will You Choose?

The debate between atheism and theism is not merely about scientific data; it is about the interpretation of that data through a framework of faith. Both positions require faith: the atheist places faith in purposeless blind chance, while the theist places faith in an intelligent Creator. The question is not whether one will have faith, but in whom or in what that faith will rest. The new atheists ridicule the idea of “faith” as inherently blind, irrational, and contrary to evidence. But as John Lennox has pointed out, this caricature is false. Biblical faith is not blind belief in spite of evidence, but trust in God based upon evidence.

Consider the origin of life. Evolutionary theory offers no settled explanation. Richard Dawkins speculates that with enough planets scattered across the cosmos, life was bound to arise somewhere. But such reasoning is not science; it is a gamble on mathematical possibility without mechanism. Cambridge professor John Barrow candidly acknowledged that the belief in the naturalistic evolution of life runs into “dead-ends at every stage.” The odds of life arising by chance in a hostile universe are so vanishingly small that it requires more faith to believe in unguided naturalism than to believe in an intelligent Creator.

DNA is not merely a chemical substance. It is a code, a repository of information. And information is the product of intelligence. No one attributes computer software, mathematical formulas, or written languages to the spontaneous interaction of molecules. Yet atheists would have us believe that life — infinitely more complex than any human creation — emerged without guidance. Such thinking requires credulity beyond reason.

Paul Davies critiques the atheist reliance on chance as a cop-out. To shrug that the universe “just is” and happens to allow life avoids the central issue. The new atheists appeal to luck as their ultimate explanation, but luck is no explanation at all. It is the denial of explanation. Michael Denton once remarked that Darwinian evolution is closer to a myth than to serious science. Indeed, attributing the order of the universe to chance is to step away from science into metaphysical storytelling.

The more we learn of the cosmos, the more the hypothesis of a Creator gains credibility as the best explanation of our existence. The question, then, is not whether belief in God is rational, but whether rejection of Him is sustainable.

A World Without Religion — An Improvement?

The new atheists envision a world without religion — a utopia without suicide bombers, inquisitions, or televangelists exploiting the gullible. Their dream is seductive, but does it correspond with reality? History suggests otherwise. The regimes of Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia sought to eliminate religion and establish godless societies. The result was not peace but mass slaughter, gulags, and starvation. Stalin’s militant atheism oversaw tens of millions of deaths. Pol Pot’s Marxist regime claimed more than a million lives. These horrors cannot be dismissed as mere accidents of governance; they were rooted in systems that denied accountability to God and exalted human authority as absolute.

The absence of religion does not guarantee virtue. In fact, atheism provides no foundation for objective morality. Law professor Phillip Johnson rightly noted that without God, there are no objective values that all people must respect. Morality becomes a matter of preference, subject to change with cultural winds. Such relativism offers no protection against tyranny, for the only authority left is power itself. By contrast, belief in God grounds human dignity and morality in something higher than shifting opinion. The psalmist rightly declared, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that does good” (Psalm 14:1).

It is true that religion has been used as a cloak for evil. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the exploitation of people by false teachers have stained history. But these atrocities do not represent true worship. Jesus condemned those who nullified God’s Word for the sake of tradition (Mark 7:13) and those who honored Him with lips while their hearts were far from Him (Matthew 15:8). The Bible makes a clear distinction between true worship, which produces the fruit of righteousness, and false worship, which caters to human desires. True worship fosters self-control, peace, and love, while false religion tickles ears and excuses sin (2 Timothy 4:3; Galatians 5:22–23).

The problem of evil is not the existence of God but the corruption of man. Human imperfection, selfishness, and rebellion against divine authority explain the world’s misery (Romans 3:23; Genesis 8:21). Far from being the poison of humanity, true faith in God through Jesus Christ offers the only antidote to sin’s destructive power.

God’s View of Religious Atrocities

The new atheists often cite the violence of the Old Testament to portray God as cruel. But a careful reading of Scripture reveals otherwise. The destruction of the Canaanites, for example, was not arbitrary genocide but divine judgment upon a culture steeped in depravity. Archaeology confirms that Canaanite religion involved ritual prostitution, bestiality, and child sacrifice. Excavations have uncovered the remains of infants offered to false gods in fires. As one archaeologist remarked, the only wonder is that God did not bring judgment sooner. The Bible records that God endured their corruption for centuries before bringing Israel into the land (Genesis 15:16). His patience was remarkable; His justice was righteous.

This serves as a warning for today. God is not indifferent to evil committed in His name. He has appointed a day when He will judge the world in righteousness through Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31). On that day, atheism will be exposed as folly, false religion as hypocrisy, and true worship as the only way of life that endures.

You May Also Enjoy

Does Aristotle Hold Immense Importance for Christian Apologetics?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS