Jul 012013

Neo-Atheism is really about a few best sellers by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and some others.  The essence of their discourse is far from scientific.  A glance at their works, makes it more appropriately describable as pseudo-intellectual mockery of God and Religion.  None of the best selling neo-Atheist authors have, to my knowledge, produced a published scientific work on their beliefs.  In debate after debate (and I’ve seen close to a hundred of them), they cannot string together a proper argument to uphold a view that “God does not exist.” Instead, they argue that they have no burden of proof that “Belief in God is unfounded”.  If belief in God is in their opinion as nonsensical as belief in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, why do they then not publish books on the unfounded beliefs in these too?The fact is that neo-Atheists, curiously, have religion and God to thank for the good sales of their books. They can literally thank God for their good fortune.

Mockery is an age-old practice that really amounts to drawing a crowd by making outrageous and insulting claims.  It is akin to Madonna and Lady Gaga compensating for a lack of singing talent, by adopting an outrageous public persona.  In a world where it becomes more and more difficult to stand out in the crowd, the usefulness of using shock as a technique becomes clear.  The major book sales achieved by Dawkins and Hitchens, are none other than the “curious onlooker crowd” phenomenon.  Have you ever driven past a horrible car accident, and noticed how all those who pass by, always slow down and try to catch a glimpse of the wreckage?  Neo-Atheism is no different. A curiosity, with no real basis.

Where the fallacy of neo-Atheism really gains currency, is when it utilises everyday suffering of people to deny timeless values and principles. neo-Atheists agree that humanity exists in its current form for over a hundred thousand years.  We all know that religion has only been around for about ten thousand of those years.  This makes nonsense of the fact that religion has given rise to most suffering.  Unless they believe that pre-religion societies experienced no murder or other forms of violent suffering.  On the contrary, the advent of religion coincides with the advent of civilisation.      The advent of religion coincides with the beginning of a universal moral code.


 Posted by on July 1, 2013 at 10:55 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.