Most of you are familiar with the “New Atheists” movement led and popularized largely by the late Christopher Hitchens. I’ve already posted extensively about New Atheism and Christopher Hitchens and you can find all my posts about them here. In the meantime, enjoy Keller’s thoughts on the movement.
What Hitchens’ and New Atheism fails to take into account is the effects of sin. Though declared totally righteous in Christ, all regenerate Christians have not been totally delivered 
from the pervasiveness or presence of sin. It would be just as easy to point out all the good that Christianity (and every other major world religion) has done over the millenniums. And as we have already seen, heinous acts have been committed in the name of atheism, as well. So by Hitchens’ own reasoning even atheism poisons everything.
Ultimately, the issue (as Hitchens’ has made it) is not about how much evil or good religion has done. Rather, the issue is which system of thought provides actual justification for the heinous acts. The reality of the matter is that Christianity is not only good for the world, it is best for the world.
Christians make mistakes. They have not been completely delivered from the presence of sin. But overall, the Christian Church reflects the love of God for sinful man in how she demonstrates love for her own and love her enemies. This love, that only comes from God, is what is best for the world.
Most “immoral” religious people act inconsistently with their beliefs, and moral atheists act inconsistently with their beliefs. Moreover, if natural selection has not “selected out” religion from society, than there seems little reason to fight so hard to eradicate what evolution has seen fit to preserve.
The testimony of the Church offers the only true hope for the world to be saved and rescued from its peril. Moreover, the Church, through her testimony, offers both an immediate and eternal world as it should be; with Christ reigning righteously and lovingly over all.
Christians testify to the greatness and love of God. They do this in two primary ways, love for each other and love for their enemies. Love for each other shows the unity that comes through the power of the gospel. Love for their enemies show the power and love of God for the lost.
Love for Each Other
In John 13:35, Jesus says, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” This is the light that is set on a hill. This is the salt with which Christians season the world. Hitchens’ argument that religion poisons everything is based, at least in part, on the unfortunate actions of professing Christians. Often times these Christians fail to show love to their brothers and their enemies. Nevertheless, Christians do demonstrate the love of God to the world as they show love to each other.
Paul testifies to this in the book of Philippians. He reminisces:
“Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. To our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.”
The Philippians’ kindness to Paul blessed him and brought glory to God. The apostle John wrote, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:7-8). Our kindness to each other not only blesses our spiritual family, it brings glory to God by demonstrating the love of God to the world.
Love For Enemies
Christians also bring glory to God and declare his gospel by demonstrating love toward their enemy. Jesus said,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
For Christians to only love their brothers and sister makes them no better than the common sinner. For even an atheist loves other atheists. But Christians must also love their enemies, for in so doing they demonstrate the truth of the gospel. In the words of Paul,
“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Romans 5:6-10).
Corrie Ten Boom is an excellent example of a Christian loving her enemies. Corrie Ten Boom, a dutch Christian, survived terrible persecution for her faith in a Nazi concentration camp. She once told the story of a post-war encounter while she was teaching in Germany in 1947. She was approached by a former Ravensbrück (where Corrie had been imprisoned) camp guard, who had been known as one of the most cruel. He extended his hand to her asking for her forgiveness. She was reluctant to forgive him, but prayed that she would be able to. She wrote, “For a long moment we grasped each other’s hands, the former guard and the former prisoner. I had never known God’s love so intensely as I did then. But even so, I realized it was not my love. I had tried, and did not have the power. It was the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Again, the apostle John summarizes best here, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” When Christians love their enemies, they reflect and declare the love that God has for his enemies. Such love can hardly be considered poisoning by any rational person.
This love that God has for the world is only found in and through Christ (John 14:6). The love of God is the only hope there is for the world now, and the world to come. Christians reflect this love and declare this love to all who will accept it. Those Christians who act inconsistently with this love merely demonstrate that they still are in need of this great Love of God.
Ultraviolet Landing Strips
As the pilot maneuvers the plane to begin its decent onto the landing strip he will usually look first for the landing light patterns on the ground to guide him into a safe and smooth landing that will show him exactly where he needs to go. Without these landing strip lights a pilot would risk serious damage to the plane and even death to himself and all passengers; they are indeed essential to his successful landing.
As people we cannot see things in ultraviolet light; however pollinating insects do see UV light. At first it was thought that this would make it difficult for insects to land on flowers and locate the pollen. However, it is this ability to see UV light that not only provides a safe landing on flowers and a food source for insects, but a pollinating mechanism for flowers as well.
Most flowers contain a particular pigmented pattern on there petals that is not visible in regular light. This pattern is like a bull’s-eye or landing strip for insects; it allows for a safe landing and it directs them right to the pollen so they won’t miss it. Like a flashing neon sign pointing to the restaurant these UV landing strip patterns point pollinating insects right to the food source. As a result, insects can utilize the pollen as food and the flowers can pollinate and reproduce.
All over creation is the thumb print of a Creator. It is obvious that complexity strongly indicates an intelligent designer. As William Paley, British Christian apologist, philosopher, and utilitarian once said,
“The watch must have a watch maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”
In the words of Paley, the watch requires a watchmaker. Design demands a designer. Creation is covered with the Creator’s signature. All that creation reveals is not enough for salvation, but it is enough to rendered without an excuse for failure to acknowledge him in our hearts, minds, and actions.
Hitchens’ responds to this line of reasoning by arguing that a Designer cannot exist because of how “bad” everything works. The “poor” design of the universe, Hitchens argues, shows that a perfect God could not have made everything. Apart from even an elementary understanding of sin, such would seem to be the case. However, Hitchens is looking at a world in its post-fallen state. When he looks at the world he does not see it as it was originally made, but as it has become as a result of sin.
Moreover, Hitchens’ reasoning in this area is flawed and self contradictory. After stating that God cannot exist because of how “badly” everything in the universe works, he states that evolution is in fact the true creator. In other words, Hitchens himself does not disagree with the logic of the Intelligent Design movement. He understands that design demands a Designer and creation demands a Creator. He simply has supplanted God with evolution. Hitchens does not disagree with the reasoning, only the conclusion. Unfortunately, science rushes to the aid of the Theists on this point. Centuries of scientific data conclusively states, natural selection cannot produce or create; it can only manage what already exists. Science preaches this truth loud and clear; evolution creates nothing. Francesco Redi proved this as early as the mid seventeenth century. Spontaneous generation cannot occur. We know this from everyday life as well. We see intelligent beings design and create things. We never see nothing (or evolution) design or create from nothing. In the case of origins, science likes Theism.
Even the most casual Bible readers are familiar with Romans 1:20. Here we find the apostle Paul in the midst of arguing for 
the existence of God as declared and testified to by creation. But Paul argues that more than God’s existence is known through creation, his eternal power and divine attributes are as well. God’s glory is declared through what he has made (Psalms 19:1). If this is true, if creation presupposes a Creator, there ought to be evidence of it in creation.
The Skin We’re In
Psalm 139:13 says, “You formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” The phrase “knit me together” in the original Hebrew can also be read as “covered me.” Interestingly enough, Human skin is scientifically termed “epithelium” that is to say it is a tissue that “covers or lines”. In undergraduate anatomy classes the skin (integument) is often described as the “human fabric.” There are very good reasons why such compliments are paid to our skin. Our skin has 3 layers to it, is approximately 3000 sq in, and makes up roughly 7% of our body weight. One square centimeter of skin contains:
As the largest organ in the body, human skin functions to protect the body against UV light, and bacteria, it is in charge of hydroregulation (regulates conservation of water in the body), thermoregulation (regulates body temperature), synthesizes vitamin D from the light of the sun, houses sensory receptors so you can feel the edge of the pages of this book to turn them, and is active in it’s roles in facial expression, odor emission, and waste secretion. Suddenly the skin is more than just something we try to tan!
The top most layer of skin, the “epidermis,” is composed of dead cells. As cells in the lower layers of the epidermis die, they slowly migrate to the surface where, once there, they shed off and are replaced with new dead cells. However, it isn’t as simple as that. This process occurs at a specific rate; the 
reproduction of new cells has to coincide with the falling off of dead ones or else the poor human would be in serious trouble! If the production of new skin cells was about 1% higher than the fall off rate of dead ones, then after only a few days the skin would accumulate so much (and eventually the skin would be so heavy) that the skin would be hard like reptile scales. The person would not be able to function and ultimately die! On the other hand, if the fall off rate of dead cells exceeded the rate of production of new cells by 1%, then the body could not produce enough skin. After a few days a person would not have any skin on and be susceptible to bacteria infection and a hasty death! Fortunately our Creator designed our skin in such a way that it operates in perfect balance; we never have to worry about looking like an alligator or catching a draft. We are truly fearfully and wonderfully made by a fearful and wonderful Creator.
Since Christopher Hitchens sees his line of reasoning and logic as legitimate and concrete, we should have no 
trouble using it to show the irony of his own conclusion. If religion poisons everything because of the behavior of some religious people, then it can and should be argued that atheism poisons everything, also because of the behavior of some atheists. We will briefly look at a few examples.
The Pygmy in the Zoo
By virtue of denying belief in God, atheism requires a Darwinian evolution worldview to explain the world. Darwinian evolution has had a major impact 
on the way people view other “races.” Every undergraduate biology student is taught that the evolutionary origin of man began in Africa, and that the African and Australian Aboriginals are not as highly evolved as the rest of the modern humans. This is a predominant teaching that apparently evolutionists are not at all ashamed to express. For example, there was an African pygmy named Ota Benga who was brought over from the Belgian Congo in Africa, by an African explorer named Samuel Verner, and placed on exhibit at the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis. However, when the fair had ended, instead of Ota Benga being returned home, Verner sold him to William Hornaday, the director of the Bronx Zoo. Where he was actually put on display in a cage with an orangutan to show how closely he resembled the ape.
People lined up with their children waiting to see this alleged “missing link” (actually a human being). One can only imagine what kind of impact that had on the minds of all the people who saw or read in the newspapers about that display. Yet this is perfectly consistent with what evolutionary doctrine.
Later on in Ota Benga’s life, he became increasingly depressed, irrational, and hostile, due to his in-humane treatment. After he came to the realization that it would be impossible to return home, on March 20, 1916 Ota Benga committed suicide by shooting himself with a revolver. In the words of G.C. Ward:
“Ota…removed the caps from his teeth. When his small companions asked him to lead them into the woods again, he turned them away. Once they were safely out of sight, he shot himself.”
It is sad that a human being actually suffered in such a way from racism, yet perhaps what is even far more discouraging is that everything that was done to him was done in the name of the anti-God religion known as evolution. The Bible, on the other hand, rejects racist teachings, and teaches that all human beings are equal.
Justified Murder for Evolution
In the early 1900′s, many scientist, in the name of evolution, hunted, shot, and killed Australian Aborigines (human beings), 
because they were viewed as the so called “missing links” in the evolutionary theory and thought to be “not yet fully human” (as compared to other humans at that time). Many of the Aborigines, after being killed, had their skulls boiled down and shipped to England along with their skins to be stuffed, all to be displayed in museums as supposed “evidence” for Darwin’s idea of evolution.
If we take Hitchens’ logic to its natural conclusion, then we would be right to say that atheism poisons everything. Moreover, atheism is dangerous and deadly to all humans not classified as anglo-saxon.
Hitchens’ critical approach is built entirely upon anecdotal and ad hominem arguments. His book is riddled throughout with stories both of personal and second-hand experiences of religious people doing extremely detrimental, and often deadly, things. However, by basing his entire argument on anecdotal accounts, 
he strays far off the classical atheist reservation. The atheist mantra of “science and reason” finds no place in Hitchens’ arguments. In so doing, he opens himself up to subjection to his own principle arguments. If religion “poisons everything” as Hitchens’ asserts based upon elaborate narratives, what of his own atheism? There are countless historical cases and narratives in which we find heinous acts committed by atheists (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tsedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, and Benito Mussolini just to name a few). Are we to conclude then that atheism “poisons everything” simply because some atheists have acted in certain ways? According to Hitchens’ reasoning we must.
The main problem that Hitchens sees with religion is the negative affect it has on the world. However, the heart of the issue lies not in the actions, but in the 
beliefs of religious people. Most religious people are not bound by violent beliefs, however violent their actions may be. On the other hand, while it can be argued that atheists are generally not violent people, Atheism as a belief system provides the perfect justification for violent and negative actions. By eradicating any standard for truth, the atheist has no basis for declaring something to be negative or harmful. The reality is that both violent religious people and non-violent atheists are equally inconsistent. The violent religious person is acting inconsistently with his non-violent beliefs. The non-violent atheist is acting inconsistently with his violence-justifying beliefs.
One final argument against Hitchens’ New Atheism (or non-theism as he calls it), lies in his own explanation of the world. Apart from accounting for a Creator, 
New Atheism clings tightly to naturalistic, darwinian evolutionary theory. However, according to this theory, natural selection would have and should have selectively removed religion from society. Unless, of course, it is a necessary component of society. But if religion is an absolute necessity for the survival of society, then how can Hitchens and others argue and fight so vehemently against it? Ultimately, then, their fight against “irrational” and “absurd” religious people, is a fight against their own faith in atheistic evolution and its ability to naturally select.
Religions, including Non-Theism or New Atheism, should never be judged by the consistency or behavior 
of its adherents. Rather, religious (and “anti-religious”) systems should be judged upon their respective stated beliefs. Experiences and behaviors should not be ignored, however it is important to understand that hypocrisy exists in more than the Sunday morning church pew. Hypocrisy is webbed in the heart of every man, whether he claim a religion or not. The message of most of the world religions certainly promote the world that Hitchens‘ would have liked to see and they can provide a moral basis for it. In subsequent posts, we will see why Christianity is to be preferred over all of these religions, especially over atheism.
Hitchens echos the argument that originated with 19th century philosopher Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach. He states that God did not create man in his image, but that man created God in his image.
However, through out the rest of his book and in fact 
at the heart of most of his arguments, Hitchens claims that God cannot exist because of the different religions of the world whose followers portray him so badly through their behavior. In essence, Hitchens is guilty of his own accusation. He claims that religious people have created God in their own image, yet he uses the “bad” behavior of religious people to reflect the character of God and thereby establish the basis for declaring God nonexistent. If God does not exist because religious people have created him in their own image, than Hitchens cannot use the bad behavior of religious people to claim their is no God. In other words, Hitchens would like to have his proverbial cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he wants to claim that God is created as a result of the reflection of man’s character, and on the other hand, he wants to claim that man’s character is the reason why God can’t exist.
It is true that some religious people have created a god in their own image. But by accepting this premise
(or even by this premise being true) does not mean that Hitchens can build his argument against the existence of God from it because, at times, a god has been created as a reflection of self. In other words, if I create a god, it does not mean that there is not a God who created me. It would be like saying: “The reason people believe in God is because they have created him in their image. Therefore, God does not exist because he has been created by man in his own image.” Mankind may create gods in their own image, but that does not in anyway discredit the claim that their is One God and He has created all man in his image.
Moreover, this argument can also be used against atheism (or non-theism). Just as atheists and non-theists alike validly claim that gods are created in man’s image, so too the idea of “no god” is created in man’s image. Just as man is capable of looking at his own father and projecting that existence onto the sky, as it were, and saying “there is a god,” so too man is also capable of looking at the absence of his own father and projecting that nonexistence onto the sky, as it were, and saying “there is no god.” Whatever absurdity Hitchens may want to accuse religious people of thinking in this area can and should be applied to his thinking as well.
Many atheist object to a belief in God because they say we cannot actually see Him. But we do not have to see God in order to know that He exists. For example, a company like Federal Express; the CEO (Fred Smith) invented door-to-door overnight express package delivery and founded the named company. Fred Smith 
doesn’t deliver the packages to anyone’s door. Instead, he initially designed and “commanded.” He built an entire system of planes, trucks, hubs, warehouses, sorting facilities, customer facilities, drop boxes, information systems, and tens of thousands of employees to perform the task of picking up and delivering millions of packages each day. Fred Smith does not personally handle or deliver every package each day to keep his business going. He created a system that functions each and every day and is governed by the laws that he established.
This is like the system God has put into place, and he designed it so it would run on its own. He gave man dominion (just like Fred Smith gave authority to his management team) and man has invented things, etc. However, Fred Smith can reach into his business and make minor or major changes if he sees a certain business unit is in need of it, like firing the management team of a customer location that persistently produces a high number of customer complaints. God does the same thing as he sees the need, like destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).
But few customers have ever met Fred Smith, and certainly were not on hand as witnesses when he designed his business, so anyone could easily say Fred had nothing to do with designing anything. Yet to deny Fred the credit for designing a brilliant world-altering system that runs by itself today, would take a blind fool.