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

exist; for further read causality by Thomas Aquinas or al kindi)

2. Universe begins to exist.
3. Thus universe has a cause. (big bang is a fact now)
This destroys Hume's infinite history escape route.
Now the for creation we have 4 options:
1. Universe came out of nothing.
(it is absurd)
2.universe came out of something created. Then we will ask who created that thing. Thus we
start an infinite regress problem.
3. Created by something that is uncreated.
That seems the best possible argument. It doesn't say it is God but something and that
something must be All powerful, Must have intellect, must have will, must be transcendent.
This argument is in depended of theories of creation. Whether someone follows evolution or
multiverse theory, this will deconstruct all false claims..
This is one way of handling the empiricism with science.
Rest intuition, gnosis and a lot more are there...

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, bias, arrogance or may be misinformation. 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. 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.
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. 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,see ,weigh,measure is reality. Superficially this seems to be true but
when we analyse this is a mistake and science herself refutes to it. Simply many sub atomic particles
havent been seen but their presence is a necessity for the stability of atom. Thus the existence is more than
mere empirical findings.
Dawkins once said, if someday God comes down to sky and asks me to submit I shall do it. This simply
resembles the claim of Quraish in Arabian society.
Besides this such claims based on empirical measurements are never and never shall be considered as
complete toolkit to know truth. Science comprises of more that mere empirical entities that include reason,
knowledge , memory, logic.

The second claim that religion has always been anti scientific is actually an outcome of long rift between
Christianity and science. Many writers including Karen Armstrong, Hogson, Durant and even some anti
Islam ideologues like Bernard Lewis, believe that Islam was not anyway anti science.
This claim is also an outcome of the inability of Muslim countries to prove themselves in the field of
science and technology. Even if this is accepted as a truth, it has nothing to do with God.
Religion leads to bloodshed is one more claim. Again even if for the sake of argument it is taken as a truth
it doesnt disprove God but may prove the God is very unjust or blood loving.
One of the main issues raised by these men against religion is the problem of evil. It can be understood as
follows:
1. God is all good.
2. since there is evil in the world.
3. There is no God.
This argument has long back answered by Muslim philosophers and then by Christian theologians as well.
The modern edition of this argument as produced by Dr Craig states:
There are hidden assumptions in the argument above. E.g.
4. If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world he wants
5. If God is good, 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. Thus existence of an objective evil necessitates existence of God. Without a moral anchor such
terms are meaningless. 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. Sam Haris also tries to derive consciousness from material thus reviving the old atheistic
philoisophy of Carvakas. The then rejected hypothesis has again been rejected by most of the scholars of
consciousness. Moreover without the presence of evil in the world, the concept of free will is absurd. And
without freewill there is no test. 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. 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. 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.
Hitchens too has few interesting points that include the bloodshed by religions. He even quotes the fatwa of
Imam Khomaeni regarding the Rush-die as pronounced by Deedat, and tries to make some generalizations
that religion is barbaric. 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.
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.

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. Mario Lavios 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.
One of the scholars beautifully describes the situation by posing a question, What is the chance of anyone
boarding a plane if its chance of landing properly are 0.00001%. How can atheist ride a plane of
coincidence when chance of this being true is almost zero?

. The belief of atheists in atheism seems to be firm but extreme blink unlike religious people.