"Several hours or several years make no difference once you have lost eternity." Jean-Paul Sartre
Old Atheism:
The magazine cover above looks like something that could be on it's way to bookstores any day now, but in fact this was the April 1966 edition of TIME magazine. Atheism was alive and well 50 years ago as was Christian apologetics, so I'm not plowing a new field here. What follows might sound odd, but there was a time when atheistic scholars were respected among their Christian counterparts and considered by many to be among the greatest philosophers of their time. They clearly didn't agree on everything, but there was a mutual respect and a common goal which was an effort to answer the big questions like purpose, life, value and eternity.
French existentialist and atheist Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was one of the biggest names in the field during his time. His father died of fever when Sartre was two. He would later go on to serve in the French military, only to be a German prisoner of war for nearly a year. Although I've never read it anywhere, one could comfortably infer that his atheism was a result of not being able to reconcile a loving God back to the evil he experienced. As an atheist, Sartre wrestled with the origin of morals. He was empathetic towards issues like feminism and was in strict opposition to Nazi anti-Semitism, yet his atheistic worldview couldn't offer a sufficient explanation for these emotions. In 1964 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature and he refused it. He is quoted as saying that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution." Sartre was a far cry from today's book touring, self promoting atheistic "scholars."
New Atheism:
Today's leading atheists are reaching far more people and selling far more books than ever imagined. Atheism has become an industry, and business is good. The atheism of the day is lead by a group that some refer to as "The Four Horsemen of the New Atheism." This group is comprised of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the late Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011). All of these men have held the #1 spot on the New York times best seller list with one or more books at some point along their path. By trade, Harris is a neuroscientist, Dawkins an evolutionary biologist, Dennett a cognitive scientist and Hitchens was a journalist. While all of these men are, and should be, recognized as leaders within their field of study, none of them are trained and formally educated theologians or philosophers. The exception is Dennett, who holds a doctorate in philosophy, but is by far the least outspoken when it comes to atheism itself. Instead he goes deeper into explaining his field of science than making a concentrated effort to rid the world of religion. When given all of their resumes it's hard for me to understand how they have become so influential when it comes to the subject of God. You might argue that they don't need to be theologians to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, but we will just have to agree to disagree. Given that the natural flow is that there had to be theism before there was atheism, then the burden of proof lies squarely on the atheist here. I find it embarrassing that someone would try to disqualify a God that they know nothing of. If this same logic were applied to our legal system, it would be no different than hiring a divorce lawyer to defend you in a murder trial. The problem is that jail time is temporary and hell is eternal.
I've been going to the same doctor for several years. He's a great physician, brother in Christ, philanthropist and missionary, but I'm just not that sure he's the guy I'm going to call if my car won't start tomorrow morning. So why are millions of people putting their eternal fate into the hands men who simply aren't qualified to discuss the subject? It's because these are entry level philosophers catering to entry level atheist. I'll admit that I've never invested the time to read their work in full, but you have to assume that their popularity alone indicates that they are palatable and well suited for the masses, much like a Justin Beiber album. If a book is deeply philosophical and soundly written then the average person will labor to read it. Christian theologians John Calvin and St. Augustine were both profound intellectuals and reading their work took real effort from a layperson such as myself. Most of the more academic Christian philosophers of today don't think much of the work of the horsemen. When interviewed on the subject of the new atheists, Dr. William Lane Craig (an actual philosopher, apologist and theologian by both degree and profession) had the following to say; "The spade of new books published by the new atheist like Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins and so-forth are not sophisticated books intellectually. These are, for the most part, angry bitter diatribes against religion. And while someone like Dawkins may be a good scientist in his field, when he begins to talk about philosophy and theology he is merely a layman. Their books are very unsophisticated intellectually. As a philosopher I am just appalled at the arguments given. It is an embarrassment really."
How We Respond:
In keeping the Gospel at the heart of this post, I want to get us to a point that allows us to really sympathize with atheists. If you struggle with loving them then you need to be in prayer. They are not the enemy, they are the target. The next time you get into a discussion with an atheist you need to understand that they have been led astray by popular, yet vastly unqualified men with hardened hearts that have no problem toying with the eternal destination of other men in the name of pleasing their publishers. I think if we're honest, we can find ourselves intimidated by someone that claims atheism as a worldview. We tend to think that the only way to get to them is by showing them love and avoiding real discussion in fear that they have the upper hand. In reality I think that it's the atheist that need to be presented with the facts about Christianity to appeal to their intellectual appetite. By all means present the truth with love and humility, but do not be intimidated.
Going Forward:
Clearly I plan on moving forward with atheism, but again this is to be a philosophical approach. I want to give the atheist a fair shot here, so I'm going to push some of their beliefs to the extreme to see where they take us. I want to put all of the aspects of atheism on the table so we can see what a world without God looks like and how unthinkable it would be to live in such a place. I think if you were to sit down with someone claiming to be an atheist and lay out all the ramifications of a truly random, meaningless existence then at the very least they would want to experience a small taste of the hope that believers rest in daily. Be in prayer for the atheists. If you want to see someone radically changed by the drawing of the Holy Spirit then you should pursue the atheist and not avoid them. Some of the greatest apologists, evangelists and theologians we have were once atheists. You might be the person that plants the seed for the next Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis.