Five Hallmarks of Fundamentalist Atheism

Increasingly in public writings men like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens display what might best be described as “fundamentalist atheism.” Others describe their views as the “new atheism.” Some call them “angry atheists.”

Regardless of the label, they act as “evangelists” or “missionaries” for their cause. They are strident in their insistence that their unbelieving way is the only acceptable and reasonable approach to life. The focus, tenor, and tone of their writings involve an unfair, prejudicial, stereotyped, bullying attack against Christians, particularly against Evangelical Christians.

I hope to avoid the same stereotype. This post is not communicating that all doubt and disbelief can be summarized by the following five “hallmarks.” Rather, I am saying that “fundamentalist atheists” like Hitchens accuse Evangelical Christians of being angry, anti-intellectual, unloving, judgmental, and weak, yet, if not careful, they end up embodying those same five caricatures in the way they write and speak about and against Evangelicals.

Here, then, are five hallmarks I perceive as I read the writings of fundamentalist atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins.

Hallmark # 1: Angry

When I read the fundamentalist atheists like Hitchens, I wonder, “Why the venom?” “Why do they find it so difficult to have a gracious, open, give-and-take conversation?” Their words are angrier than the Christians they accuse of being angry.

Based upon my interpretation of Romans 1:18-25 and Psalms 10 and 14, I wonder if the anger has something to do with a suppressed anger against the God they say does not exist. While unbelievers say they do not believe because there is not enough evidence warranting belief, Romans 1 and Psalms 10 and 14 indicate that there is a chosen, rebellious suppression of that evidence. Is suppressed anger at God seeping out against Christians? That’s one possible biblical perspective on the writings of Hitchens and Dawkins.

Hallmark # 2: Anti-Intellectual

Fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins are more anti-intellectual than the Christians they accuse of being anti-intellectual. For example, they often “cherry pick”: in a discussion they will describe one extreme negative example from the life of a Christian and stereotype that as indicative of the Christian norm. In research statistics this is known as an “outlier.” However, we are not to use an outlier to assess the whole.

Yet highlighting the “worst case” happens frequently. “Well that tele-evangelist…” Well, what about the quarter-million pastors who sacrificially love and serve people as they serve Christ? That would be like the Christian saying, “All atheists are just like Stalin and Castro.” Both stereotypes would be unfair.

In personal conversation with people who have read Dawkins, I’ll sometimes ask, “What books by thinking, loving Christians have you read?” Almost universally the answer is, “None!” The exclamation mark indicating pride in their refusal to read Christian material.

Yet, many thinking Christians read Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris (books by the fundamentalist atheists). Why are Christians, who read books by atheists, who attend universities staffed by secularists, and who are well-educated and well-read called “anti-intellectual,” when atheists who only read “within their camp” viewed as intellectuals?

What causes this close-mindedness to any books, materials, or facts other than those that seem to support the atheistic perspective? What might explain this failure to read widely and/or to read with an open mind—especially those you are going to be critiquing? Could this be caused, in part, by fear of being swayed by the other perspective, by a reasonable, logical, and even theological presentation of the case for Christ?

There’s seems to be a fear to doubt their doubt. Personally, I’ve spent years wrestling honestly with my own doubts (including growing up in an unbelieving home). Some atheists I talk to don’t seem to want to spend time candidly pondering the possibility that they may be wrong about their unbelief. They don’t seem to want to wrestle intellectually and emotionally with their doubt (others that I talk to are open and willing to explore a path toward faith and belief, or at least ponder reasons for their doubts).

Hallmark # 3: Unloving

In their unfair, stereotyped, snarky, bullying attacks, fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins end up being less loving than the Christians they accuse of being unloving. Does the fundamentalist atheist like Dawkins end up expending more energy railing against Christians than sacrificially giving to others?

A frequent stereotype tossed about is that Christians are focused exclusively on what they’re against and do little or nothing in terms of positive ministry. It’s the “truth without love” stereotype. How loving is it to highlight extreme negative examples while failing to acknowledge the myriad ways in which Christians seek to love others with Christ’s love?

For example, people will say that Christians are pro-life but don’t support care for those who are born needy. Yet there is a huge emphasis in Christianity on adoption, on charitable giving, on ministering to the orphaned and oppressed, on parental training and family counseling. Is it fair and loving to ignore these acts of mercy when writing about/against Christianity?

Hallmark # 4: Judgmental

The writings of fundamentalist atheists like Hitches are more judgmental than the Christians they accuse of being judgmental. When they hold a negative view against Christians with passionate conviction, they call it “social justice.” When a Christian holds a view with passionate conviction they call it “arrogant condemnation” or “hateful intolerance.”

This conveys a post-modernist perspective that the only approved moral position is amorality. They fail to acknowledge that their refusal to allow others to hold a moral view other than their own view is itself intolerant.

John Dickson has an excellent definition of humility: holding power in the service of others. Why wouldn’t the Christian who stands up for pro-life views, for example, be seen as compassionately and humbly holding power in the service of the most powerless—the unborn? Instead, in the supposed name of an accepting and cooperative society, the only acceptable cooperation is blind allegiance to an atheistic worldview.

And, yes, I do believe atheism is a worldview. Predominant among the “doctrines” of that worldview is a modernisitic anti-supernatural bias that dismisses the both/and thinking of science and the supernatural (the lower story and the upper story). It claims to accept as acceptable only that which can be seen with the eyes and tested under a microscope.

In its “fundamentalist form” it then becomes dismissive of and disrespectful toward the 95% of the seven billion people on earth who believe in both the natural world and the supernatural. With snide and snarky comments, belief in Christ is equated to belief in the tooth fairy. Besides the point that this lacks empathy for those who hold their faith dearly, it also lacks consistency because there is historical evidence for Christ that can be evaluated, whereas, of course, no such historical evidence for the tooth fairy exists.

This returns us to two previous points. First, it reflects the refusal to read with an open mind the books that do address evidence for Christ and Christianity such as the historicity of Christ, the evindence for Christ’s resurrection, the veracity of Scripture, the changed lives of Christians (including love and hope), the evidence from creation, the uniqueness of the Christians message of grace, the uniqueness of the Christian message of a triune God, the uniqueness of the Christian message of an incarnate God who dies for humanity (these later areas address “comparative religion”). (In a subsequent post I will provide links to “the best of the best” in well-reasoned books that present the case for Christ and Christianity. No one blog post could possible supply or summarize the vast amount of available material.)

Second, this returns us to the theological issue of the suppression of truth (Romans 1:18-25), evidence, and facts. Rather than simple anti-supernaturalism, it becomes anti-willingness to consider the evidence. Why? As indicated above, from a theological perspective, Romans 1 and Psalms 10 and 14 present one perspective: a chosen, willful suppression of allegiance to and love for the Creator.

Hallmark # 5: Weakness

Fundamentalist atheists at times accuse Christians of being “weak” because “they have to place their faith in a Supreme Being.” Is faith weak? Is it weak to engage in “creative suffering” that provides healing hope that leads not only to surviving, but also to thriving? Is it weak to engage in “creative suffering” that not only produces meaning in seeming meaningless suffering, but prompts and promotes sacrificial living for others?

Can unbelief ever be perceived as a sign of “weakness”? Can the bullying done by Hitchens potentially be seen as a compensation for weakness?

A Way Forward

So what’s the point?

The cultural point is to stand up to the bullying, labeling, and unfair, prejudicial stereotyping done by Hitchens and Dawkins. The labels they heap upon Christians match their own writings. It’s the pot calling the kettle black. That’s really all I’m saying.

The relational point is to call for a mutually civil, honest, respectful conversation. Let’s admit that all of us may at times need to ask ourselves whether we are guilty of being angry, anti-intellectual, unloving, judgmental, and using bullying to cover weakness. (From my theological perspective, we are all sinners in need of forgiveness from God in Christ.) Let’s admit that most Christians and most atheists’ lives are not characterized by angry, anti-intellectual, unloving, judgmental weakness.

The theological point is to call for a reasonable, open investigation of truth—the truth will set you free. Here’s my invitation to my friends who do not believe. In our mutual commitment to the many ways of knowing (reason/logic, empiricism/research/science, and experience/relationships/“intuition”) let’s not ignore revelation—God’s revealed truth in His Word. Let’s be open to exploring the evidence for the veracity of God’s Word and the uniqueness of Christianity.

The personal point is to say, “I have compassion and empathy for anyone who doubts Christ.” By “lovingly exposing” some of the inconsistencies of “fundamentalist atheism” I hope to encourage and challenge those who do not believe in Christ to reassess their own unbelief. There’s no need to walk lock-step in the path of strident folks like Hitchens and Dawkins. There are other, more reasonable ways to view and explore Christ and Christianity.

A second and final personal point. To those who are offended by my words in this post. I am sorry. My point is not to offend. In part, as I’ve said, my point is to defend Christians against unfair attacks. I have tried to avoid doing the same. I know I have failed in some ways. I have written and rewritten this post. I have thought about deleting it because I truly want to help the conversation forward, not move it backwards. I wonder, is it okay to “push back” some on those who “push down” Christians? Are Christians allowed to hold and express their theological convictions based upon their biblical interpretations? Certainly others are allowed to disagree—hopefully respectfully. In many ways, this post is written out of my own experience of doubt and unbelief and the process that God brought me through and is still bringing me through to faith and belief. To all who want to ponder that journey, I will conclude with the invitation from Jesus that changed my life.

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28-29).