Section 20 — The New Atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris — Answered Directly

The Christian Statement

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett produced, in the mid-2000s, a wave of popular atheist books with enormous cultural influence. Their arguments, though widely read, drew sharp criticism from philosophers — including atheist philosophers — for being philosophically weak. The disciple should know the main arguments and the main responses.

Richard Dawkins — The God Delusion (2006)

Dawkins's central argument is the "Ultimate Boeing 747" argument: God would need to be more complex than the universe He created. So positing God explains nothing — it just adds complexity. A designer more complex than what He designed requires its own explanation.

Response: This argument misunderstands what theism claims. God is not a complex physical system built from simpler parts. By definition, God is a simple — in the philosophical sense: non-composite — necessary being. The complexity objection applies to physical things assembled from components. It does not apply to an immaterial, necessary, uncaused being. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, one of the most respected philosophers of religion alive, called Dawkins's argument "at best, a rookie mistake."

Christopher Hitchens — God Is Not Great (2007)

Hitchens's main argument is moral: religion has caused enormous harm. "Religion poisons everything."

Response: The harm done in the name of religion is real and should be owned without defensiveness. But "people have done terrible things in the name of X, therefore X is false" is not a logical argument. It is an emotional one. The 20th century's worst atrocities — the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's Cambodia — were carried out by explicitly atheist regimes. The argument cuts both ways. And the question of whether God exists is separate from the question of whether religious people have behaved well. The argument from historical harm is not a truth argument. It is a grievance argument.

Sam Harris — The End of Faith (2004), Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)

Harris argues that religious faith is irrational — belief held without enough evidence. He also argues that moderate religion enables extremism by giving it cover.

Response: Harris assumes that "evidence" only means scientific evidence. But that is itself a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. The claim that only science warrants belief cannot be verified by science. It is self-refuting. His argument about moderate religion enabling extremism is more interesting, but it mixes up the content of a belief with the social dynamics of how it spreads. The response to extremism is not no religion. It is better theology — a theology in which violence in God's name is ruled out by the character of the God being worshipped.

★ Disciple Tip: When a secular person cites Dawkins or Hitchens as though the case against religion is closed, don't dismiss those writers — engage them. Show that you have read them and find their arguments unconvincing for specific reasons. A disciple who can say "I've read Dawkins carefully and here is where I think he makes a philosophical error" earns immediate respect from any intellectually serious secular person.