New Atheism and New Theism

Remember “new atheism”? It seems like such a long time ago. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, new atheism was an important part of the cultural landscape, especially on the internet. Books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens inspired a movement to actively oppose religion in the public square. These days, it has been eclipsed by other issues, but there was a time when atheism versus theism was the biggest debate raging on the internet.

The main difference between “old” and “new” atheism was one of attitude. The new atheists were aggressively opposed to religion, and they brought the debate into the public square. They were also effective early users of social media, such as Twitter and YouTube.

The standard atheist claim is that religion is irrational. It is not supported by evidence, and many religious beliefs are logically or conceptually absurd. The new atheists also claimed that religion is immoral and harmful, and thus it should be actively opposed. They argued that religion is the cause of war, hatred and oppression.

Such claims are harder to back up intellectually, but they have more crowd appeal. Most people find moral and consequential claims more interesting than epistemology. This shift to emotionally charged rhetoric also lowered the intellectual level of the debating arena. Especially in online forums, debates between theists and atheists tended to degenerate from philosophical discourse to moralizing, and then to personal attacks and general mud-slinging. That is the normal trajectory of ideological conflict.

In spite of its flaws, the new atheist movement did raise awareness of philosophical issues. Debate brings background assumptions into the foreground, where they can be examined and questioned. New atheism raised questions that it couldn’t answer, such as “What is knowledge?” and “What is morality?”.

New atheism generated an opposition movement, which I call “new theism”. New theism was the mirror image of new atheism. It was aggressive and highly online. Rather than playing defense, the new theists went on the attack. They critiqued the atheists as having no foundation for their beliefs, including the rejection of religion. The basic argument of new theism is that atheism is incoherent, because atheism implies nihilism. The new theists argued that the atheists couldn’t rationally make any claims at all, because they had no foundation.

The new atheists were often caught off guard by these attacks, because (like most people) they had never really thought about the basis of their own beliefs. They were prepared to attack religion, not to defend their own beliefs against philosophical skepticism.

Like most people, the typical atheist is philosophically naive. He has never thought about the basis of morality, the nature of knowledge, or the purpose of life. He isn’t a deep thinker. He just knows a few arguments against theism, which he uses to claim intellectual and moral superiority over theists. New theism takes advantage of his philosophical ignorance. The new theist points out (correctly) that the atheist has no foundation for morality, knowledge and purpose. The new theist challenges the atheist to justify his own worldview. The typical atheist can’t meet this challenge.

The new theist isn’t really interested in philosophy. He uses philosophical skepticism as a weapon, not as a tool of inquiry. But philosophical skepticism cuts both ways. Thus, the new theist needs a defense against philosophical skepticism. And he claims to have one: God. The new theist claims that belief in God is a necessary antidote for nihilism.

His argument is something like this:

Without God, there is no objective foundation for morality, knowledge or purpose. Without God, there is no ultimate explanation or justification for anything.

Thus, you must believe in God. Otherwise, you will be cast into the abyss of nihilism.

The new theist uses philosophical skepticism to expose the abyss. Then he claims that God can rescue us from the abyss. He claims that God solves all of the philosophical problems that he has brought to the attention of the naive atheist. God provides an objective foundation for morality, knowledge and purpose. God provides an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe, and for the order that we represent in scientific theories. God gives us an ultimate justification for our beliefs. God is the foundation, and without God there is no foundation.

But this is utter delusion.

First, the new theist is making an appeal-to-consequences fallacy, which has the form: “You should believe in God to escape from nihilism”. The new theist offers you a choice between God and nihilism, as if you could just choose one or the other. But belief isn’t a choice. You can choose a flavor of ice cream or a brand of toothpaste. You can’t choose to believe that it is raining when you see the blue, cloudless sky above. You can’t believe in God just because you want to.

Even if belief in God did rescue us from the abyss, that wouldn’t be a reason to believe in God.

Second, God doesn’t rescue us from the abyss. I agree with the new theist that, without God, there is no objective foundation for morality, knowledge or purpose. However, it doesn’t follow that God is a foundation.

Even if God existed, and you believed that God existed, you wouldn’t have an objective foundation, because you would still be a subject. You would be free to question your belief in God. You would also be free to accept or reject God’s authority. From your perspective, you are the ultimate authority. There is no escaping from that existential responsibility.

New theists sometimes claim that thought presupposes God. That is another illogical leap. Thought has presuppositions, although it might be hard for us to fully define them, since we can only examine thought with thought. However, we can at least identify some of them. For example, we presuppose the mental ability to represent reality to some extent. Our models of reality involve space, time and causality, which seem to be presuppositional. The law of non-contradiction is another example of a constraint on thought, and thus a presupposition of thought. Thought is not free. It has a structure. But that structure is not God, and it does not imply the existence of God.

If I look out the window and say “The rain has stopped”, I presuppose that I can have knowledge of the world. Otherwise, the statement would be meaningless. However, I do not presuppose that I have absolutely certain knowledge of the world, or that my knowledge has a cosmic guarantee, or that my knowledge of reality is objective truth. I certainly don’t presuppose God.

New theism works as a debating strategy, because most people are philosophically naive. They have never stared into the abyss. They are unaware of philosophical problems. When confronted by philosophical skepticism applied to morality, knowledge and purpose, they become confused and defensive. They have no answers.

New theism resembles post-modernism in its hypocritical use of philosophical skepticism. Post-modernists use philosophical critiques of knowledge and agency to attack the (right-wing) beliefs of others, but they don’t apply the same critiques to their own (left-wing) beliefs. They hold their own beliefs off-limits to examination and criticism, while applying radical skepticism to the beliefs of others. The new theist is hypocritical in the same way. He uses philosophical skepticism to attack the beliefs of the atheist, while holding his own religious beliefs off-limits to skepticism.

The new theist has no objective foundation. His worldview rests upon assumptions, including his religious beliefs, which are taken for granted and protected from skepticism. His “foundation” is not God. It is just his refusal to question those assumptions.

Faith is just the refusal to think. The new theist puts all the problems of philosophy into a black box called “God”, and then declares the problems “solved”. This just hides the problems. It doesn’t solve them.

It is worth pointing out that any notion of God could provide the same false foundation. As a joke, I could tell the new theist that I have been persuaded by his arguments, and I now believe in God. But I don’t believe in his God. Instead, I believe in the 7-Headed Pig, who lives at the center of our galaxy. The 7-Headed Pig gives me a basis for morality, knowledge and purpose. He is the ultimate explanation of everything — except himself, of course, because he is inexplicable. He provides the ultimate justification for all beliefs, but requires no justification himself.

Of course, this is just a variation on the flying spaghetti monster concept, which is a parody of the God concept.

The new theist’s argument for theism is not only fallacious, it is also religiously vacuous. It does not justify Christianity. It is equally compatible with Islam, Satanism, Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterism or 7-Headed-Pigism.

Last but not least, the new theist’s conception of God doesn’t solve any of the standard skeptical challenges to religious belief.

So, are we just back where we started? No, not at all.

The new atheists attacked belief in God, arguing that it is irrational. The new theists retaliated by attacking the atheist’s faith in morality, knowledge and purpose. Both were right. Neither side has a rational worldview. Both helped to bring philosophical problems into the public square. Both raised awareness of the abyss.