You are on page 1of 4

On 4 donkey men:of neo-atheism

The modern atheistic movement has been in news for quite long time. Disbelief is nothing new and neither
is rejection of God by few any new phenomenons. But the thing that is of utmost importance is that the
same atheism and Godlessness is being projected as an Ultimate truth and The final revelation by a Master
who is unparalleled in history ie Science. In other words, theists or those believing in religion are pushed to
walls by these postulates that appear as if truth has ultimately arrived. In this modern epoch of information
technology such claims and sweeping generalization regarding the hypothesis that God is a myth is a
reality and thus a kind of Pharaoh for religion who has his magicians at his command. Thus Moses must
arrive to deconstruct the magical hymns and wake common masses up.
Such an attempt to demean religion has been made by the so called four horseman of neo-atheistic
movement. Although I consider all these 4 men including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam
Harris and Daniel Dennet of no challenge as most of the points raised by these men have already been there
since ages but the extra media coverage and propagation of atheism as a “religion” by referring to these 4
has been a trend nowadays.
In this short note we shall try to understand what they claim tyo be the final revelation revealed by their
god ie science perceived by human brain and intellect. Dawkins book “God delusion “ has few arguments
in rejection of God. The main arguments can be summed up as:
1. God is not scientifically proven. (Assuming the non existence of any entity using empirical sciences)
2. Religion is a kind of hypothesis and has always been anti scientific.
3. Religion leads to bloodshed and mayhem
4. Since there is evil , God is a myth.
5. Morality can independently explained by science rather existence of some Moral anchor ie God.
The problem with Richard Dawkins is more than mere empiricism. All the 4 horsemen of neo
atheism including Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Haris and other one, rely their thesis not only on
science but bias against religion. Although Dawkins "God delusion" is far better than
Hitchens "God is not great" but the tackling of question and it's intricacy remains there.
Dawkins real problem can be summarized as:
1. His assumption that science is mere empiricism.
2. His inability and misappropriation of tackling the problem of evil.
3. His fear/bias against religion
If we look at his claims, Dawkins says, "If someday God comes over the sky and calls him to
submit, he will do it". Remember what Quran says about the claims of Quraish and their
demands.
Dawkins always finds evolution (coincidence at the back of mind) responsible for creation
against Design argument.. Again a balant misinformation or sweeping generalization.
Let us deconstruct his whole argument by Kalams argument postulated by our
philosophers...
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (Not applicable to God as He doesn't Begin to

measure is reality. The basic cause for that seems to be the assumption by all of such figures in history who adhere to an idea that their mind has transcended the reality and they no more need to submit before any Judge or Authority or Law. Then we will ask who created that thing. 3. That seems the best possible argument. Simply many sub atomic particles haven’t been seen but their presence is a necessity for the stability of atom. this will deconstruct all false claims. When we read the books by these “learned” men we find that there are many assumptions behind their ideas and scientific facts presented in a way to make their point. bias. Created by something that is uncreated.universe came out of something created. Now the for creation we have 4 options: 1. for further read causality by Thomas Aquinas or al kindi) 2. Rest intuition.exist. arrogance or may be misinformation. Universe came out of nothing. Universe begins to exist.. For example Science is used synonymously with empirical science and one can feel the assumption behind the usage of word science in a way that whatever one can perceive. gnosis and a lot more are there. memory. 3. must have will. Superficially this seems to be true but when we analyse this is a mistake and science herself refutes to it. . (it is absurd) 2.weigh. This argument is in depended of theories of creation. knowledge . Besides arguments the attitude and the intensity of anxiety that governs the write-ups and ideas of these 4 horse men depict their extreme fear. Whether someone follows evolution or multiverse theory. Thus the existence is more than mere empirical findings.. “if someday God comes down to sky and asks me to submit I shall do it”. logic. Thus universe has a cause. It doesn't say it is God but something and that something must be All powerful.. Science comprises of more that mere empirical entities that include reason. This is one way of handling the empiricism with science. Must have intellect. Besides this such claims based on empirical measurements are never and never shall be considered as complete toolkit to know truth. This simply resembles the claim of Quraish in Arabian society. Thus we start an infinite regress problem. Dawkins once said. must be transcendent.see . (big bang is a fact now) This destroys Hume's infinite history escape route. This feeling perhaps leads to an illusion of independence and freedom but is actually a trap that leads to self idolatory or self worship and in a way ends up being a faith/belief again.

Sam Haris also tries to derive consciousness from material thus reviving the old atheistic philoisophy of Carvakas. 3. This claim is also an outcome of the inability of Muslim countries to prove themselves in the field of science and technology. If God is omnipotent. Sam Haris has tried to derive morality from science but if we look into it closely we come to know that at a point he is actually trying to create some entity equivalent to God and ascribes that objectivity to it. the concept of free will is absurd. believe that Islam was not anyway anti science. The then rejected hypothesis has again been rejected by most of the scholars of consciousness. Many writers including Karen Armstrong. God is all good. 4. Again even if for the sake of argument it is taken as a truth it doesn’t disprove God but may prove the God is very unjust or blood loving. Moreover without the presence of evil in the world. If God is good. Hogson. Even if this is accepted as a truth. And without freewill there is no test. Durant and even some anti Islam ideologues like Bernard Lewis. Will to choose to be good or evil? Dr Lawrence Crass similarly tries to associate the existence of this universe to an entity/ energy or more precisely “nothingness” and we can understand the absurdity of such claim. Thus existence of an objective evil necessitates existence of God. The modern edition of this argument as produced by Dr Craig states: There are hidden assumptions in the argument above. This argument has long back answered by Muslim philosophers and then by Christian theologians as well. There is no God.The second claim that religion has always been anti scientific is actually an outcome of long rift between Christianity and science. 2. E. At last if we closely try to examine the claims and arguments of all these hourse men we can see a biased view and a kind of “atheistic blind faith” working behind and inspiring them to prove religion wrong. Hitchens too has few interesting points that include the bloodshed by religions. since there is evil in the world. Is that science? Is replacing a Being ie God with absurdity of “nothingness” and then the creation of something from n0othingness more intelligent idea although it is in no way scientific neother does it pass the litmus test of the same neo atheists. Religion leads to bloodshed is one more claim. One of the main issues raised by these men against religion is the problem of evil. . it has nothing to do with God. We can see a great amount of consistency in the idea of life in Muslim theology that states that Life of this world is a test and thus humans have been given a free will. He even quotes the fatwa of Imam Khomaeni regarding the Rush-die as pronounced by Deedat.g. then he prefers a world without evil Answer to this argument is that Evil is a relative term except a Moral anchor and God only can be a moral anchor. We donot need to engage in these arguments as the premise he chooses to prove by this is far away from the substanciative arguments thus conclusions are more based on bias and emotional affiliations rather intellectual engagements. and tries to make some generalizations that religion is barbaric. It can be understood as follows: 1. Without a moral anchor such terms are meaningless. then he can create any world he wants 5.

“What is the chance of anyone boarding a plane if its chance of landing properly are 0. “Mario Lavio’s book “Is God a mathematician” and “Golden ratio” beautifully describe the design intricacies and the issues with considering chance a way out. . Chance calculation if done using a perfect tool as per Decarte ie Mathematics comes out to be zero.00001%”.Few of them even try to deconstruct the Grand Design argument by comparing it with a necessity of effect of a cause and others try to explain it by mere chance. How can atheist ride a plane of coincidence when chance of this being true is almost zero? . One of the scholars beautifully describes the situation by posing a question. The belief of “atheists” in atheism seems to be firm but extreme blink unlike religious people.