Back in 1966 (April 8) TIME magazine ran a story outlining the then contemporary movement within American religion to declare the concept of “God” as passé.  In fact the cover of TIME read, “Is God Dead” in large red letters with an all black background.  The philosophical movement called logical positivism, then still popular, asserted that theological assertions (statements about God) were absolutely meaningless because they could not be verified by science, logic, or mathematics (empirical or self-evident truths).  However, it was only a year later (Dec 26, 1969) when TIME ran another cover story with the words, “Is God Coming Back To Life.”  It noted the movement to rediscover theism within the academic disciplines.

I wonder if you’ve heard much talk about what is being called the “new atheism”?  There’s nothing really new about the arguments being made.  It’s simply another resurgence of a strong atheism.  It’s also being communicated on more a popular and less academic level than ever before.  Names like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens may be the most prolific voices waving the old flag of the new atheism.  Another characteristic of these new voices is the nature and volume of the rhetoric being used.  Not only is religion being called an evil force by the new atheism, but there are also proposals being made to stop—by force if necessary—those “stupid” or “wicked” purveyors of theism (e.g., Christian parents who teach their children). 

Thankfully, as Peter Berkowitz points out in his article, “The New New Atheism,” appearing in The Wall Street Journal, there is a “disproportion between the bluster and bravado of their rhetoric and the limitations of their major arguments.”  That is, the arguments being put forward by the new atheism fundamentally lack substance.  And instead of rigorous argumentation, they rely upon emotional appeals and myriad claims which are poorly developed.

Nevertheless, while I believe this new thrust of the old atheism doesn’t present us with anything all that new, it is a good reminder to us that we must “always be prepared” to gently and humbly “give an answer to everyone who asks [us] to give the reason for the hope that [we] have” (1 Pet 3:15).  This includes pointing out the flaws inherent within the new atheism.  Therefore, because I think Berkowitz’s article (mentioned above) was so spot-on, I’ve included its link to The Wall Street Journal.  Please check out the Berkowitz’s piece (HERE) and let me know what you think.