Friday, March 20, 2015

The New Atheists and Christianity: Why Christianity Offers a Better Reality

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
The New Atheists and Christianity: Why Christianity Offers a Better Reality
 Submitted to Dr. C. Fred Smith, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the completion of the course
APOL 500 B01
Introduction to Apologetics
by
Ray Ruppert
March 6, 2015

Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
The New Atheists – Worldview...................................................................................................... 1
Basic Atheistic Tenets .......................................................................................................... 2
Additional Views of New Atheists ...................................................................................... 2
The Hope of New Atheists ................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation of New Atheists’ Worldview........................................................................................ 4
Rationality of Reality............................................................................................................ 4
Results of Their Reality......................................................................................................... 6
Cultural Fecundity of Their Reality....................................................................................... 8
Christian Theism.............................................................................................................................. 9
The Reality of the Christian Universe................................................................................... 9
Specifics of Christian Worldview.......................................................................................... 10
Results of Adherence to Christianity.................................................................................... 11
Christian Answers to New Atheists................................................................................................ 12
Not Just Any God ................................................................................................................ 12
Answering the Issues of Evil................................................................................................. 13
Answering Moral Responsibility........................................................................................... 14
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................ 15
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 17
 

Introduction

The fundamental principle of the atheistic worldview is that there is no God or gods. They also deny the possibility of any existence beyond the material universe. Modern atheists believe that science alone explains the world, as we see it today. The New Atheists extrapolate their beliefs in a worldview that is militantly intolerant of religion, believing that religion is false and harmful.[1] They want to replace religion with their belief that science can answer all the needs of mankind, provide moral guidance, and give meaning to life. This liberating essence of science stands in opposition to the oppression and poison of religion.[2] This paper will examine these claims of the New Atheists and the claims of Christianity, which refute these atheistic views. It will seek to demonstrate that a Christian worldview is a better explanation for reality than an atheistic worldview in that (1) there is one God, the Christian God; (2) the Christian faith is true and represents reality; (3) adherence to the Christian faith results in a better temporal and eternal life than atheism.

The New Atheists – Worldview

This section will take a quick look at the basic tenets of atheism to which nearly all atheists will agree. It will also reveal the views of a modern group of people labeled the New Atheists. These atheists extend hope for a better life for individuals as well as the world by eliminating religion.

 Basic Atheistic Tenets

The first tenet of atheism holds there is no supernatural being that created the universe and everything in it. Richard Dawkins explains the first premise, “Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.”[3]
The second tenet of atheism is that science can or will be able to explain everything. Science explains many things that are reproducible and measurable; however, atheists believe that science either has or will go well beyond these parameters. Sam Harris believes that science will one day discern the reasons for ethics even though this science is now “struggling to be born.”[4]
Atheists believe that “reality is material and lacks any moral purpose or objective moral law.”[5] Dan Barker explains that atheists look to nature for the basis of morality. He believes that while there are moral values, they cannot be objective because they only exist in one’s mind.[6]

Additional Views of New Atheists

The view that earned the New Atheists their name is that of intolerance of any kind of religion. The title of Christopher Hitchens’ book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, is a clear indication that they do not simply have a philosophical difference of opinion. Their worldview demands action that would ultimately remove all religions and any belief system that incorporates a supreme being. Andrew Fiala states, “They [Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens] each claim that we should no longer be tolerant toward religion. This conclusion follows if one accepts the two premises that religion poisons everything and that religious claims are false."[7] Dawkins believes that “fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of … innocent … young minds.”[8] He also says, “What is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”[9] Harris states, “There can be no doubt that religious faith remains a perpetual source of human conflict.”[10]
The New Atheists also claim that religion perpetrated atrocities throughout history rather than atheists. They spend considerable energy in their books detailing the problems with various instances including the genocide of the Canaanites, crusades, Spanish inquisition, and Islamic terrorism. Harris enumerates many recent conflicts between religious groups.[11] Dawkins excuses the same atrocities by atheists by explaining that their previous religious upbringing was the real reason; he uses Stalin’s brutality as an example. He also elaborates on Hitler’s adherence to Catholicism claiming that he was always a man of faith.[12]

The Hope of New Atheists

New Atheists envision a world where reason governs everything. Scientifically discerned reason will guide the behavior of individuals and society, eliminating the evils of this world. New Atheists work toward and advocate the extermination of theism, as they believe that religion is the cause of all evils. Harris says, “We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. … It is imperative that we begin speaking plainly about the absurdity of most of our religious beliefs.”[13] Baker calls himself a “professional evangelist devoting my time to promoting reason, science and humanistic morality.”[14]
The New Atheists conclude that this life is the only one they will ever have. They were nothing before they came into existence and they will be nothing after they die. Unlike some atheists who see this leading to ultimate despair,[15] New Atheists claim this is liberating, allowing them to make the most of life. Dawkins sums it up, “The knowledge that we have only one life should make it all the more precious. The atheistic view is correspondingly life-affirming and life-enhancing, while at the same time never being tainted with self-delusion, wishful thinking, or the whingeing self-pity of those who feel that life owes them something.”[16]

Evaluation of New Atheists’ Worldview

This section of the paper will examine the New Atheist worldview to see if their view of reality is rational. It will provide insight into the results of their view of realty. Finally, it will evaluate the proposed cultural benefits of their worldview after eliminating religion.

Rationality of Reality

The use of rationality is the clarion call of atheism. Their appeal to rationalism is apparent in their devout adherence to science and physical evidence is the only allowed basis. Harris states, “None of the ‘evidences’ proves a supernatural being, so those who continue to believe are acting irrationally.[17] Does all the evidence of science support the contention that there is no God? Does science adequately explain the existence of the universe and even more important, the existence of life? Carl Wieland points out that there are only two answers to this. 
Either the world was made or it made itself. If it was not made, then hydrogen is a gas which not only has appeared from nothing, but left to itself, has turned into people (and everything else). If it was made, then we are talking about a making entity that, by definition, is so stupendous that the only viable candidate, really, is the infinite/ personal God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. … Many of the assumptions underlying evolutionism within the various subject areas fly in the face of known scientific laws and principles in physics, chemistry and probability.[18]
 
Many books support or deny the existence of God. The arguments go back and forth. As an example, Norman Geisler in his textbook, Christian Apologetics, believes that atheists have correctly debunked the principle of sufficient reason even with the refinement of a self-caused or self-explained being. However, he then argues how causality does not lead to an impossible self-caused being.[19] In the space allotted, this paper will not be able to provide any specific argument that will enable those opposed to the existence of God to change their minds. They have made their arguments and responded to the counter arguments and still believe there is no evidence. Rather, this appeal is to consider that nine eminent scientists with Ph.D.s have provided scientific evidence that supports the existence of God. Each has authored or coauthored a chapter in Evolution's Achilles' Heels in the following areas: (1) Natural Selection, (2) Genetics and DNA, (3) The Origin of Life, (4) The Fossil Record, (5) The Geologic Record, (6) Radiometric Dating, (7) Cosmology and the Big Bang, and (8) Ethics and Morality. The preponderance of scientific evidence in these areas for the existence of God makes it irrational to believe that God does not exist. It is irrational to believe that the universe could have spontaneously generated itself out of nothing. 
The additional claim of the New Atheists is that religion is false and pernicious.[20] Certainly, the long lists of atrocities by religious organizations that they cite are a compelling argument against religion. However, their arguments against religion are also irrational. The concept that religion poisons everything “is empirically unsupportable because it is overly broad. Some forms of religion are poisonous; but religion cannot be said to poison everything."[21] They believe that teaching anything false essentially leads to evil. Since they believe there is no God, then teaching that God exists is false and therefore evil. However, their irrational position on God is the basis for their belief about religion; therefore, their belief about religion is also irrational.

Results of Their Reality

It is not possible to extrapolate all the possible results of atheism in general and this paper is interested primarily in the results of the New Atheists’ worldview. There are two primary results of the New Atheists’ worldview. The first is the intolerance of religion. In this intolerance, the most odious of the religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They base this primarily on the Old Testament since all three ascribe God’s authorship to it.[22] What would be the result of a widespread elimination of these and all other religions? One would certainly be the acceptance of same sex marriage. Harris implies that homosexual and other behaviors have “no significant risk of harm to anyone.”[23] Another would be laws that prohibit action based on religious belief resulting in lawsuits and fines for disobedience. An example is the conviction of a Richland, Washington florist for violating state consumer and anti-discrimination laws by refusing to sell flowers for a gay wedding.[24] Under this worldview, the basis for ethics leading to laws would be fulfilling the happiness or alleviating the suffering of sentient creatures.[25]
Barker relates how the Freedom from Religion Foundation has used the court system to further the agenda of the New Atheists in chapter seventeen, “We Go to Washington.”[26] The Foundation’s stated purpose is “to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.”[27] The Foundation lists eleven successful legal campaigns as its accomplishments.[28] It is evident that a result of the New Atheists’ worldview will be continued legal action against religious organizations and lobbying to prevent freedom of religion.
The second result of their reality is wishful thinking based on the advancement of science. They believe that by eliminating religion, science will then provide the answers to all questions regarding ethics, morality, and existence. This will then liberate people to reach their full potential in their one lifetime because they have shed the enslavement to religion’s concepts of sin.[29] Unfortunately, “without God any legal or moral system will be differentiated by its axiomatic choice of who serves as the moral evaluator.”[30] Since each person is his or her own moral evaluator, then it is logical to assume that their moral and ethical system would result in people trying to fulfill their happiness at the expense of others. Morals and ethics would be constantly changing depending on majority opinion or whoever is in power. These changes would not necessarily advance to an overall good for society.  

Cultural Fecundity of Their Reality

Does the worldview of the New Atheists “inspire cultural and intellectual discovery, creativity, and productivity?”[31] According to the claims of the New Atheists, the resounding answer is yes. Barker elaborates on the importance of not wasting a moment of the precious life that he has. The realization that he has no eternal life gives him purpose for this life. He also relates the contributions that famous atheists made to society. He provides a significant list of atheistic musicians. “The FFRF has compiled a list … of hundreds of atheists, agnostics and doubters who have made significant contributions to the world.[32] His contention and that of other New Atheists is that the elimination of all religions will produce a world with even better cultural diversity.
Dawkins also alludes that complete atheism would reduce the need for police and implies that religious people are more likely to loot and commit violent crimes. He attributes some of this to atheists having “higher education, better intelligence, or reflectiveness.”[33] Satosi Kanazawa’s research into the intelligence of liberals and atheists supports Dawkin’s conclusion about intelligence.[34]
 
If everything the New Atheists claim were true, then the world would be a better place if everyone adhered to atheism. However, the problem is that not everyone believes the sectarian brand of the New Atheists. Some atheists see that reality viewed without filters is terrible. They may envision a better life but they must accept that it is futile.[35] Even if the studies are right, even if the less educated, less intelligent people of the world became atheists, this would not guarantee that the world would be better or have more culture. They are drawing conclusions that the studies do not necessarily support. Becoming an atheist does not make one more intelligent or better educated. These attributes only makes it harder to become a Christian (1 Cor 1:18-31).

Christian Theism

Christian theism believes that there is one God, he is the only God, and he created everything. While his attributes may be seen in nature (Rom 1:20), he has revealed himself uniquely through the Bible and finally in Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-4). From the beginning of his revelation, he has revealed himself as a triune God (Gen 1:26), but being more specifically, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19).

The Reality of the Christian Universe

There are many arguments that seek to prove the rationality of the existence of God. The empirical arguments base their foundation on evidence in the world. Others are philosophical arguments that claim, “The very idea of God as a greatest possible being rationally demands that God exists.”[36] The empirical arguments are perhaps the most convincing since atheists rely so heavily on science to prove the nonexistence of God. However, with an open philosophy of science, which does not eliminate possible causes by presupposed assumptions about the “nature of science,”[37] the reality of a created universe is the most logical.

Specifics of Christian Worldview

Allowing for the existence of God is a basic requirement of the Christian worldview. It starts with belief that God made the universe. This worldview is God centric, not man centric, or nature centric. This universe is coherent in that this God does not sit idly by while his creation runs amuck or even like a fine-tuned clock. Rather, he is involved in sustaining the world, making sure it operates in the way he designed it (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3). 
He also revealed himself to mankind. God spoke to the prophets of the ancient world who faithfully recorded his message in the Bible (2 Peter 1:21). The Bible clearly states that mankind was made in God’s image (Gen 1:26) and is therefore not an accident of nature. Man is not just an evolved animal, but a specific creation designed for God’s purpose (Ps 8:3-8). The Bible also reveals that mankind rebelled against God’s authority resulting in human evil and a corrupted creation (Gen 3:1-20).
God is personal and is intimately involved in the lives of each person from before his or her birth to death and every day in between (Ps 139:1-18). His desire is to have personal communion with everyone (Rev 3:20). Because he made everything, he holds people accountable for their rebellion and rejection of God’s purpose for their lives (Rom 3:19).
God is also deeply grieved when any person is in rebellion against him (Isa 63:10). He does not let unrepentant rebellion go unpunished and provides a way of reconciliation (Ex 34:7, Rom 2:4-5, 2 Cor 5:18). Because of his care for mankind, he came to the earth in the person of Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins (John 3:16, Rom 4:25). Rejection of God’s way of reconciliation leads to eternal punishment (Luke 13:2-5) but acceptance of it provides the way of eternal life (Rom 10:9-11).
At some point in the future, God will provide a full recovery of the universe from the corruption that he inflicted on it because of mankind’s rebellion (Rom 8:19-21, Rev 21:1). This restored universe will be the eternal home of those who have put their trust in Jesus Christ to save them from their rebellion (John 14:1-3).

Results of Adherence to Christianity

Adherence to the Christian worldview means adherence to Jesus Christ. It is not a religion in the sense that it is mankind’s desire to win the approval of God by following rules and regulations. Rather, it is trusting Jesus for salvation and demonstrating that trust by devotion and obedience to Jesus. The New Atheists claim that even moderate religion fosters extremism and extremism breeds terrorists motivated by their perception of righteousness.[38] In contrast, the following is a summary of what should occur in the life of an adherent to Jesus.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another (Gal 5:22-26 ESV).
A follower of Jesus must not be associated with the following characteristics, “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies” (Gal 5:19-21). Not all Christians live up to these standards. Even worse, some people identify themselves with Jesus but are not true Christians and commit atrocities in the name of Christ. While atheists and other anti-Christian groups attribute great harm to the Christian religion, it does not nullify the fact that the real results of following Jesus are far more gracious.

Christian Answers to New Atheists

This section addresses the issues of New Atheists to show that Christianity has a better worldview than theirs. Since they lump Christianity together with other religions, Christianity must distinguish itself from other religions. In addition, Christianity has a better answer for the issues of evil than the New Atheists. Without addressing all the issues of the New Atheists, this section will show that moral responsibility has better meaning in Christianity.

Not Just Any God

Proving the existence of God is not enough for Christianity. Truth is the basis for a worldview and the many different religions encompass truths that contradict the very basics of the Christian faith. There must be distinction between Christianity and other religions as well as atheism. Ted Peters states the difference well, “What seems to be missing is an item that is important when interpreting the gospel of Jesus Christ, namely, the God of the Nazarene is a gracious God.”[39] From the beginning of creation, it is evident that the Christian God is personal and gracious. He created mankind in his image, with purpose, and demonstrated his graciousness by promising a resolution for mankind’s fall (Gen 3:15).
The New Atheists completely miss the graciousness of God. All they can see is a capricious God who exhibits jealous carnage and destruction to protect his worship.[40] The gods of other religions are all impersonal in one sense or another. It is not logical to label some of them a god, such as the god of Hinduism, because it is not a being but a principle or essence.[41] It is not possible for this or any other nondualistic principle to be gracious, as it cannot interact with people.
The God of Islam is impersonal in the sense of being cold and alienated. Allah demonstrates his aloofness and alienation through the emphasis of judgment more than heaven. Allah’s sovereignty is evident in that even if a person’s good deeds outweigh his bad, he still cannot know for sure he will see heaven. The exception is that death in jihad provides eternal life. In addition, prayers do not include personal requests. “Allah is absolutely sovereign and views humans as his slaves, not his friends or his servants.”[42]
In contrast to these other concepts of God, Christians trust in the triune God who, through Jesus, graciously gave his life to ensure that we have eternal life. Romans 5:8 explains that while we were sinners, Christ died for us. His death is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2). Jesus takes the personal nature of God to an unprecedented level in John 15:13-17. He explains the ultimate friendship of dying for friends, calls us his friends, and tells us that the Father will answer our prayers in Jesus’ name. This is the gracious God of Christianity. No other god is sufficient.

Answering the Issues of Evil

The issue of evil is very important to the New Atheists since they blame religion for almost all evil. Barker believes that teaching the depravity of man only sets people up to fail. Rather, a healthier view of human nature would produce less evil.[43] Whether this is true or not, it still does not explain the evils of the evolutionary world, the millions of years of “unceasing battle, dread, ravin, pain”[44] experienced by sentient beings. 
Christianity has the only comprehensive view of evil, whether it is perpetrated by mankind or is evident in the suffering of sentient nonhuman beings. It begins with God’s creation and his declaration, “it was very good” (Gen 1:31 ESV). God did not create evil and evil did not exist in his original creation. Evil entered the world when Adam and Eve succumbed to temptation and the result was a corrupted universe (Gen 3:1-20, Rom 8:20-22). Evil is not caused by teaching religion, but it is part of the basic nature of mankind that has an image of God tainted by sin. This explains why people, whether religious or not still bring untold suffering to the world. It explains why there is unceasing battle, dread, plunder, and pain even among nonhuman species. 
God did not leave the world in its broken condition but provided redemption.[45] Jesus Christ is the only complete answer to overcome evil. As long as the universe exists in its present form, there will be evil. However, Jesus’ death on the cross provides the power for individuals to overcome evil in their lives (2 Peter 1:3-4). Jesus’ promised return and eventual recreation of the universe will overcome all the natural evils seen in the world (Rev 21:1-4).

Answering Moral Responsibility

New Atheists believe that the human mind establishes morality in response to determining value or relative worth. Without the presence of intelligence to judge the value, there would be no morality. They believe that the human mind is best suited to judge human activity rather than an outsider such as a god.[46] William Provine states firmly, “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.”[47] While Provine spoke long before the New Atheists, this concept of morality forms the basis of their belief. The ultimate logical extension of this morality indicates that human life is no more valuable than that of other animals since all have the same source.
An absolute standard of truth based on the unchanging nature of the one God who made the universe is the foundation for Christian morality. The fundamental understanding of this is that God is the only one who is truly good (Mark 10:18). Because of the fall, mankind cannot be consistently good; rather, from the depraved nature comes all kinds of evils (Mark 7:21-23). God has provided a moral code for mankind to follow in the Bible; however, that code has shown that mankind is unable to live up to the standards God provided (Rom 3:23, 7:7). 
Some may complain that it is not their fault that they are unable to meet the standard citing evolutionary processes, thereby rejecting their own free will to chose evil or good. However, God holds people accountable for their inability to attain moral goodness according to his standard (Rom 3:19). 
Mankind is hopeless without a Savior. Mankind has hope only because God came in the person of Jesus Christ, “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, … he was buried, … he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” (1 Cor 15:3-4). Our moral problem has been solved and when we trust in Jesus for our salvation we are born again (1 Peter 1:3), become new creatures (2 Cor 5:17), and able to live a life pleasing to God (Col 1:10).

Conclusion

 The basic tenets of atheism are lacking in a rational ability to explain reality. This is not necessarily the majority opinion of scientists. However, many scientists, upon investigating the claims of evolution and other naturalistic explanations for the universe, found that there is sufficient scientific evidence to believe in an intelligent being who created the universe. Theism is the better explanation for the reality of the universe.
The New Atheists justify their intolerance of religions based on historical atrocities perpetrated by various religions while excusing those same actions of atheists. Their claim that Atheism produces a better world than one with religion is not consistent with history and is wishful thinking. They have no means to prove that a society or world without God must be better than one with God. 
Christianity is the only viable alternative. The gods of other religions fall short in comparison to the God of the Christian Bible for they are either impersonal or aloof and unresponsive to mankind. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ provide the only explanation for the need of mankind (and the universe) to be rescued from the fall. The power of the Holy Spirit gives mankind the ability to live a better life in this world. The promised return of Jesus and restoration of the universe provides the ultimate hope and motivation for mankind.

Bibliography

Barker, Dan. Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists. New York: Ulysses Press, 2008.
Battan, Donald, Robert Carter, David Catchpoole, John Hartnett, Mark Harwood, Jim Mason, Jonathan Sarfati, Emil Silvestru, and Tasman Walker. Evolution's Achilles' Heels. Edited by Robert Carter. Powder Springs: Creation Book Publishers, 2014.
Dawkins, Richard The God Delusion. Boston: Mariner Books, 2008. Adobe eBook.
Dupré, Louis. “On the Intellectual Sources of Modern Atheism.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 45, no. 1 (February 1999): 1-11. Accessed January 22, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40019110.
Feser, Edward. “The New Atheists and the Cosmological Argument.” Midwest Studies In Philosophy 37, no. 1 (2013): 154-77. Accessed January 15, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/misp.12000.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: a Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011. Kindle.
Fiala, Andrew. “Militant Atheism, Pragmatism, and the God-Shaped Hole.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65, no. 3 (June 2009): 139-51. Accessed January 22, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270253.
Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. 1 ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1976.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: a Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011. Kindle.
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004.
Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2009.
Howe, Thomas J. “Affirmations after God: Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard Dawkins on Atheism.” Zygon 47, no. 1 (March 2012): 140-155. Accessed January 15, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01243.x.
Johnson, Andrew. “An Apology for the ‘New Atheism’.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73, no. 1 (February 2013): 5-28. Accessed January 22, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11153-012-9350-9.
Kanazawa, Satoshi. “Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent.” Social Psychology Quarterly 73, no. 1 (March 2010): 33-57. Accessed January 15, 2015. http://search.proquest.com/docview/907550502?accountid=12085.
Kaplan, Louis. “The 'New Atheists' Rebutted.” Midstream 57, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 26-30. Accessed January 23, 2015. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA252002663&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=3560de750dafaee6229e66d8dd03b02f.
Moreland, J.P. Christianity and the Nature of Science. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.
Moreland, J.P. and John Mark Reynolds, eds. Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Penelhum, Terence, and Daniel Howard-Snyder. “Religion After Atheism.” Religious Studies 49, no. 2 (June 2013): 249-55. Accessed January 22, 2015. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1437191301?accountid=12085.
Peters, Ted. “Christian God-Talk While Listening to Atheists, Pluralists, and Muslims.” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 46, no. 2 (Summer 2007): 84-103. Accessed January 15, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6385.2007.00314.x.
Provine, William B., and Phillip E. Johnson. “Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?” Origins Research 16, no. 1 (1994). Accessed February 25, 2015. http://arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm.
Romanes, George John. A Candid Examination of Theism. Boston: Houghton, Osgood, and Company, 1878. Kindle.


[1] Andrew Fiala, “Militant Atheism, Pragmatism, and the God-Shaped Hole,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65, no. 3 (June 2009): 140, accessed January 22, 2015, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270253.
[2] Ted Peters, “Christian God-Talk While Listening to Atheists, Pluralists, and Muslims,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 46, no. 2 (Summer 2007): 88, accessed January 15, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6385.2007.00314.x
[3] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Mariner Books, 2008), 38-39, Adobe eBook.
[4] Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 74.
[5] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: a Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 3661, Kindle.
[6] Dan Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists (New York: Ulysses Press, 2008), 213.
[7] Fiala, 140.
[8] Dawkins, 253, Adobe eBook.
[9] Ibid., 274, eBook.
[10] Harris, 236.
[11] Ibid., 26.
[12] Dawkins, 242-244, Adobe eBook.
[13] Harris, 48.
[14] Barker, 68.
[15] Thomas J. Howe, “Affirmations After God: Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard Dawkins on Atheism,” Zygon 47, no. 1 (March 2012): 141-142, accessed January 15, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01243.x.
[16] Dawkins, 320, Adobe eBook.
[17] Harris, 90.
[18] Carl Wieland, “Foreword,” in Evolution's Achilles' Heels, ed. Robert Carter (Powder Springs: Creation Book Publishers, 2014), 174-190, Kindle.
[19] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 1 ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1976), 223-225.
[20] Dawkins, 39, 78, 274, Adobe eBook.
[21] Fiala, 140.
[22] Barker, 161-167, Dawkins, 43, Adobe eBook, Harris, 15-23.
[23] Harris 258-259.
[24] Seattle Times Staff, “Judge: Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Broke Law,” Seattle Times, February 18, 2015, accessed February 20, 2015, http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/judge-washington-florist-who-refused-gay-wedding-broke-law-1888-2/.
[25] Harris 170-171.
[26] Barker, “We Go to Washington,” 309-319.
[27] “What Is the Foundation's Purpose?,” Freedom from Religion Foundation, accessed February 21, 2015, http://ffrf.org/faq/item/14999-what-is-the-foundations-purpose?.
[28] “What Is the Foundation's Accomplishments?,” Freedom from Religion Foundation, accessed February 21, 2015, http://ffrf.org/faq/item/15000-what-are-the-foundations-accomplishments.
[29] Baker, 355-356.
[30] Groothuis, 3713, Kindle.
[31] Groothuis, 539, Kindle.
[32] Barker, 343-347.
[33] Dawkins, 203-205, Adobe eBook.
[34] Satoshi Kanazawa “Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent.,” Social Psychology Quarterly 73, no. 1 (March 2010): 8, ProQuest, accessed January 15, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/docview/907550502?accountid=12085.
[35] Howe, 141-142, 150.
[36] Groothuis, 1792-1795, Kindle.
[37] Paul Johnson and John Mark Reynolds, “Young Earth Creationism,” in Three Views On Creation and Evolution, ed. James Porter Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 61-62.
[38] Dawkins, 269, 271, Adobe eBook.
[39] Peters, 84.
[40] Dawkins, 38, 215-217, Adobe eBook.
[41] Groothuis, 6161, Kindle.
[42] Ibid., 6516, Kindle.
[43] Barker, 171.
[44] George John Romanes, A Candid Examination of Theism (Boston: Houghton, Osgood, and Company, 1878), 2412-2417, Kindle
[45] Groothuis, 6817-6818, Kindle.
[46] Barker, 210-211.
[47] William B. Provine and Phillip E. Johnson, “Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy?,” Origins Research 16, no. 1 (1994), accessed February 25, 2015, http://arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm.