After observing how overtly our incredulous powers-that-be are trying to route society toward godlessness, I felt compelled to read Al Mohler's book 'Atheism: Remix.' If you are concerned for the direction of our nation (and the world) regarding the increasing interest in not only atheism, but anti-theism, then I think you'd find this little resource most enlightening.
It shows the historical progress of atheism in society which is interesting, but if you only read one chapter of the book read "The New Atheism and the Defense of Theism." This chapter falls after a concise but informative look at today's leading atheists. At the forefront is Richard Dawkins a.k.a. "Darwin's Rottweiler" or "The Devil's Chaplain." Mohler gleans from a couple suitable minds that oppose Dawkins's worldview. One of which is the Oxford-educated Christian scientist Alister McGrath who holds a doctorate in theology as well as a doctorate in molecular biophysics. McGrath has written a couple books aimed exclusively at pointing out the fallicies within Dawkins's arguments. And it humors me. Speaking about The God Delusion he says, "The book is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument." He also asserted that the book is "half-baked nonsense that is not intended to reach believers at all, because genuine believers will not even recognize their own beliefs in his presentation."
I thought it was great how he calls out Dawkins as pushing a distorted caricature of Christanity, and how he actually knows very little about the faith he debates. Mohler says that "McGrath's critique is most valuable for his incisive refutation and undermining of Dawkins's most central arguments."
Mohler also cites Alvin Plantinga who is a fiery Christian philosopher who contends that The God Delusion actually contains poor philosophy and very little science. He suggests: "Why, you might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that will be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in sophomore philosophy class." He then goes on to explain how naturalism is intrinsically self-refuting. There are several excerpts from Plantinga and McGrath's books that I am too lazy to type out, but don't take my word for it...doo doo doot!
They both pick up on Dawkins's belligerent arrogance regarding his own presupposed world-view as the only possible/credible reality. McGrath states "real scientists understand the limitations of the scientific method and would consider questions with an intellectual openness notably missing from Richard Dawkins." I'm thankful for men like this who can articulate the ignoratio elenchi of naturalism adequately enough to level the atheist elite of our day.
The book closes with some examples of modern "Christians" who are spewing drivel about how we need to give up the belief that the bible is literal and embrace the ideas of our non-believing collegues. To which Mohler quotes the atheist Eugene D Genovese as saying, "I intend no offense, but it takes one to know one. And when I read much Protestant theology and religious history today, I have the warm feeling that I am in the company of fellow nonbelievers." This is a sadly accurate view of our moralized church-going nation.
Over all, this little book serves as a great resource to get something of an overview of a small portion of Satan's influence among fallen men. It also helps bring to light ideas and arguments that we Christians will increasingly need to concern ourselves with.
