Recently, a disgruntled Muslim turned atheist (more like agnostic) over at MSNBC argued for the need of “a new style of atheism” to combat what he perceived to be a “creeping theocracy” and “death of conventional religion.”
Zeeshan Aleem
According to Zeeshan Aleem, not only could atheism protect against a godly society, it would “address the social and spiritual vacuum emerging in the wake of the slow death of mainstream religion.”
Aleem learned and benefited from the New Atheism during the early 2000s, but it too often falsely lambasted religion, for religion ultimately does have some lasting, positive affects and effects.
“Communitarian atheism,” or Aleem’s new concoction for old foolishness, would be “the best of all worlds.”
Stated more succinctly, Aleem’s premises amount to these:
- Godliness is a bad thing
- Conventional religion (i.e. biblical Christianity) is dying
- The “New Atheism” of yesteryear regularly crossed the lines of reality
- The “New Atheism” of today would do things so much better
On the face of it, you really have to wonder what goes on in the minds of those who keep rehashing the same failed, ungodly worldviews, as they attempt to lead lives without God.
Godliness is a bad thing, really?
Of course, Aleem likes to use hyperbolic lingo like “theocracy” and “Christian nationalism” to make his argument sound more coherent.
But stop and think about it.
Structuring society after godly principles like, flee idolatry, don’t commit
murder, honor your wife, husband, mother, and father, and don’t take what doesn’t belong to you, would be bad?
As arguments go, once a premise has failed, then the whole argument is untrue.
Hence, Aleem’s first premise that godliness is a bad thing is a dismal failure right out of the blocks.
Nevertheless, what about premise #2: Conventional religion or biblical Christianity is dying?
Jesus said “the gates of hell” would not prevail against the church (Mt 16:18), which is blunt way of saying that regardless of how much the Christian church would ebb and flow throughout history, ultimately God would always have a remnant on the earth to influence society, whether it appeared to be in decline to atheists like Zeeshan Aleem or not.
That said, the Wall Street Journal ran an article in July 2022, which clearly contradicts Aleem’s assumption that organized religion is on the wane and it’s time for the disorganized atheists to step in and fill the gap.
According to Johnson and Levin, “Reports of religion’s decline in America have been exaggerated.”
Why is that?
Because those who have been analyzing the data have also been misinterpreting it.
Data from five recent U.S. population surveys point to the vibrancy, ubiquity and growth of religion in the U.S. Americans are becoming more religious, and religious institutions are thriving. Consistent with some previous studies but contrary to widely held assumptions, many people who report no religious affiliation—and even many self-identified atheists and agnostics—exhibit substantial levels of religious practice and belief.
That would seem to coincide even with Aleem’s admission that regardless of his subscription to atheism, he is still religious at heart.
It is also something I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, that atheists are some of the most religious people on planet earth.
After all, it takes a whole lot more religious faith to reject God’s revelation that He exists than it does to accept what God “has said” about himself by faith and then act accordingly.
So, Aleem’s second premise, like his first one, fails miserably, simply because he has chosen to accept and project a “flawed” interpretation of the religious data that is out there.
Premise #3, that “The New Atheism” went overboard in its criticism of religion, and especially Christianity, is true, though.
I had written a few articles on Christopher Hitchens and some of his atheist colleagues, and repeatedly pointed out just how far-fetched they were in their assumptions.
Back in 2016, I even wrote a short book in response to Sam Harris, entitled Letter to an Atheist Village: Exposing the Unbeliever’s Bluff, where I systematically demonstrated just how idiotic a person would have to be to adhere to atheist principles.
So, between caricaturing Christianity and being reduced to silence, the “New Atheism” of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, et al, offered absolutely nothing of value in their quest to bring about their secularized utopia, which is probably why Aleem now feels somewhat empty and desperate to do atheism right this time.
Aleem argued, “Communitarian atheism is the best of all worlds.”
How so?
By taking what he thinks is the good from religion and combining it with secularistic atheism!
By doing so, Christian theocracy “fueled” by a heavily Roman Catholic-influenced Supreme Court can be beaten back and a new-and-improved societal ethic can guide the way.
Again, really?
A combination of theism and atheism will be fused together to produce a new religious ethic, and society as a whole will be better ethically, morally, and above all spiritually?
This is the kind of idiocy that led God to reveal that “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God!” (Ps 14:1).
Not only is Aleem totally inconsistent with what atheists ought to be doing when it comes to offering an opinion about anything, he undermines his own argument by doing so–and that as an agnostic!
No, we don’t need another brand of atheism imposing its foolishness upon anything, whether it be government, education, or religion.
The 3-4% of those claiming to be atheists have already done enough damage to society as it stands.
What we need is for the Zeeshan Aleem’s of the world to do is consistently live what they claim to be, and if they’ll simply do that (namely, shut up), the world will be a better place
They will have not only have made a major contribution to the whole of humanity, they will have been thought to be wise.
Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent (Prov. 17:28)
It’s a beneficial irony that the atheist often overlooks amid his zeal to demean those he feels is a threat to what he has to offer, which is nothing.
