Hugh posted this on the last call for topics…
Stumbled across this today:
Crisis for the Godless: Atheism in Decline Worldwide
Interesting mix of good news and bad news.
The good:
Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.
The bad:
…Re-Christianization is by no means occurring. “What we are observing instead is a re-paganization… [the] rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism.”
What kinds of challenges and opportunities does this present to us as followers of Christ?
He also has a great related post on his blog.
I think that this shows that the apologetics issue of our time is relativism and narcissistic spirituality. In America, Oprah is the high priestess of this god is whatever works for you and all that matters is that we accept one another form of spirituality.
I’ve often said give me a good atheist any day over someone who thinks that it doesn’t matter what you believe. At least the atheist shares our epistemology (understanding of how we know things). At least the atheist realizes that the world is a particular way. We just need to convince him that he is mistaken.
The person who smiles and says “Oh yes. Jesus. How wonderful. That’s great for you. For me, God is…” To this person about the gospel is not foolishness, but nonsensical. The gospel presumes that there is objective truth (that is, that the world actually is a particular way).
The criticisms found in this article could be leveled against any worldview.
1. Atheism is loosing it’s scientific underpinnings. While I agree that atheism’s lack of evidence to support its worldview is a definete weakness, I still think this weakness can be found in any worldview. Where is the scientific proof for Christian regeneration?
2. The historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.
Ouch! Please don’t apply this standard to Christians. The conduct of an adherent of a particular worldview does not definitively prove, or disprove that worldview. Christians have done horrible things over the years, but Christianity is growing like wildfire in the world. How would Uwe Siemon-Netto account for this, I wonder?
While I think that these two things are contributing to the decline of atheism, I don’t think that they play a primary role in it’s decline. I agree with Eric, the narcissistic spirituality is the problem that is replacing atheism. People know that scientific evidence is not necessary if they claim to be there own authority and thereby claim autonomy. Autonomy makes personal behavior a moving target. “I will behave how I want.”
Uwe Siemon-Netto wrote, “After all, a Satanist is also ‘spiritual’.” Define spiritual. That is the debate of our time.
“The criticisms found in this article could be leveled against any worldview.”
Jason, that’s exactly the point! Spirituality has regained some standing because “anti-spirituality” has been shown to exhibit the same flaws – at least as practiced by men. (I’m resisting going off on a tangent on how atheism is not anti-religious, but rather a religion unto itself…)
To address one specific line of argument you made, the point about atheism losing its scientific underpinnings is important not because science is the ultimate arbiter of truth, but because it is the ultimate arbiter of truth within modern atheism. The house of cards thus implodes.
Anyway, to a lost world, everything now seems equally valid – whether “spiritual” or not. The salient point is that the criteria people apply is no longer “is this true,” but rather, “is this for me?”
Hugh, thanks for the comments. Let me clarify in hopes that this will be helpful in better understanding me.
Man is the ultimate authority within the modern atheist’s worldview. He may seek to use science as the underpinnings for his belief that there is no God, but the decision to do so is his. Therefore, as his own authority, he has decided what scientific information he deems as credible proof for his worldview. There is an abundance of scientific evidence that the resurrection was an actual historical event. He will ignore this information because it does not fit into his worldview. So scientific information is not the problem- it is the interpreter of that information (fallen man).
The fact that we are facing a paradigm change due to the lack of scientific evidence to support evolution is not the primary cause (as I said in my previous comments) of the decline of atheism- though it is a huge factor. I would agree that the point about atheism is loosing its scientific underpinnings is important, but it is not the ultimate cause.
I think atheism has proven to be a religion that will fight for prominence until Christ returns. The form that it takes seems to be facing a shift and this presents a great opportunity for Christians to teach that the gospel is the only truly consistent worldview that one can hold. The fact that atheism may be in decline in our day in favor of some other form of spirituality is simply man swapping one idol for another. The result is that his authority is still in tact- he is his own authority and not the God of the Bible.
Jason, welcome to the discussion! Given your last post, I’m curious. How would you categorize the rise of Islam today? Would you put it in the same category, as just another form of atheism, where man is the authority? On the surface, it strikes me as fundamentally different because it defers authority to a monotheistic god. Of course, it is a false god–and ultimately an idol.
Thanks for the welcome, Eric. I can see how some of my comments beg this question. I think that Islam is not another form of atheism, but rather it is in many ways the extreme opposite. It would claim the Quran as its authority and not man.
Atheism is essentially paganism. So to say that there is a shift away from paganism to paganism is strange language to me- there is no change of authority.
Atheism sees its authority in man. Islam is different. Many have classified Islam as a religion where man has no possible way of knowing the will of god (authority), but this is not entirely true. It is closer to Catholicism in that its authority is mediated by a prophet who speaks for Allah. But this is logically inconsistent (I think). If Allah is unknowable, how can there be prophets who speak his will? It does not seem that they can account for this in their worldview.
Understand that I am a rookie study of Islam and have only an elementary grasp of its doctrines. But in short, my answer to your question is that I attribute the rise of Islam to a man who borrowed from the Christian worldview enough to effectively decieve many because Islam has a proposed answer to the most basic questions of human existence- but it is not consistent in its answers.