Point-by-point responses to claims from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and other "New Atheists"
✨ Responding to New Atheism • PDF • Free Download
The "New Atheism" movement, led by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett (the "Four Horsemen"), emerged in the early 2000s with a more aggressive, confrontational approach to atheism.
Unlike classical atheism which focused on philosophy, New Atheism uses rhetoric, mockery, and emotional appeals to attack religion—particularly Christianity. They claim science has disproven God, faith is irrational, and religion is harmful.
But their arguments collapse under scrutiny. Let's examine their major claims and provide solid Christian responses backed by evidence, logic, and history.
"Religion is the root of all evil" - Christopher Hitchens
False. Atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) killed over 100 million in the 20th century—far more than religious wars. Evil comes from human hearts, not religious beliefs. Christianity teaches enemy-love, not violence (Matthew 5:44).
"There's no evidence for God" - Richard Dawkins
False. Multiple lines of evidence exist: cosmological (Big Bang), teleological (fine-tuning), moral (objective values), historical (resurrection), consciousness, and philosophical arguments. Dawkins ignores evidence outside his narrow scientific expertise.
"Faith is belief without evidence" - Sam Harris
False definition. Biblical faith (Hebrews 11:1) is trust based on evidence. Christians have reasons for faith: historical resurrection, fulfilled prophecy, changed lives, philosophical arguments. Faith is warranted trust, not blind belief.
"Religion is a delusion" - Richard Dawkins
Circular reasoning. Dawkins assumes naturalism, then declares anything supernatural 'delusional.' But if God exists, belief in Him is rational, not delusional. The question isn't 'Is it delusional?' but 'Is it TRUE?'
"Science has disproven God"
False. Science studies natural processes; it cannot address supernatural causation. Many founders of modern science were Christians (Newton, Kepler, Pascal). The Big Bang, fine-tuning, and DNA's information all point TO God, not away from Him.
"The Bible is full of contradictions"
Alleged 'contradictions' are misunderstandings. Differences in Gospel accounts show independent testimony (which historians value). No contradictions affect core doctrines. The Bible is 99.5% textually accurate—the most reliable ancient document.
New Atheism isn't about evidence—it's about rhetoric. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris use emotional appeals, mockery, and straw-man arguments rather than engaging with the best Christian scholarship.
They dismiss philosophical arguments and historical evidence without serious engagement
They create a false definition of faith as 'belief without evidence' and attack that
They ridicule rather than interact with serious Christian thinkers
Serious Christian scholars who engage New Atheism with evidence
Alister McGrath
Direct response to Dawkins
Multiple scholars
Response to Hitchens
Tim Keller
Thoughtful apologetics
C.S. Lewis
Classic defense
Lee Strobel
Historical evidence
William Lane Craig
Philosophical arguments
New Atheism sounds confident, but it's built on weak foundations. Christianity has 2,000 years of intellectual tradition, evidence, and changed lives. Truth will prevail.
Understanding the main figures and their arguments
Evolutionary Biologist
The God Delusion (2006)
Main Argument:
Religion is a delusion and should be treated as such. Evolution explains design without God.
Christian Response:
Dawkins confuses his expertise in biology with philosophy. Evolution explains HOW life develops, not WHY life exists or WHERE the first life came from. His arguments against God's existence are philosophical—outside his scientific expertise—and philosophers (even atheist ones) widely criticize them as simplistic.
Key Weaknesses:
Famous Quote:
"God is not the simplest explanation—natural processes are."
Response: But WHERE did natural processes come from? Who designed the laws of nature? Dawkins doesn't answer; he just pushes the question back one step.
Journalist & Polemicist
God Is Not Great (2007)
Main Argument:
Religion poisons everything. It causes violence, oppression, and intellectual stagnation.
Christian Response:
Hitchens cherry-picks bad examples while ignoring Christianity's positive contributions: hospitals, universities, abolition of slavery, civil rights, charity, and humanitarian aid. Atheistic regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) killed over 100 million—far more than religious wars. The problem isn't religion; it's fallen human nature.
Key Weaknesses:
Famous Quote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Response: But Christians DO provide evidence—Hitchens just refused to engage it. Historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, fine-tuning of the universe, moral law, etc.
Neuroscientist & Philosopher
The End of Faith (2004)
Main Argument:
Faith is belief without evidence. Religion is dangerous and should be abandoned in favor of reason and science.
Christian Response:
Harris redefines 'faith' incorrectly. Biblical faith (Hebrews 11:1) is trust based on evidence, not blind belief. Christians have reasons: historical resurrection, fulfilled prophecy, philosophical arguments, changed lives. Harris also can't explain consciousness, free will, or objective morality on naturalism—yet he assumes all three.
Key Weaknesses:
Famous Quote:
"Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating, and he'll ask for evidence. Tell him the bread is the body of Christ, and he accepts it. Why?"
Response: False analogy. Christians have REASONS for believing the Eucharist: Jesus' own words (John 6), apostolic testimony, and 2,000 years of church practice. Harris confuses faith WITH evidence for faith WITHOUT evidence.
Philosopher & Cognitive Scientist
Breaking the Spell (2006)
Main Argument:
Religious belief can be explained naturalistically through evolution. God is an unnecessary hypothesis.
Christian Response:
Even if we can explain WHY people believe in God (evolutionary psychology), that doesn't prove God doesn't exist. People evolved to trust their senses—does that mean external reality is false? Dennett commits the 'genetic fallacy'—explaining the origin of a belief doesn't disprove the belief. Christianity claims God created humans to know Him, so OF COURSE we'd have a natural inclination toward God.
Key Weaknesses:
Famous Quote:
"Belief in God can be explained by natural selection."
Response: So can belief in logic, math, and science. Does that make them false? This argument cuts both ways and proves nothing.
Comprehensive responses to New Atheist claims
FALSE. Multiple lines of evidence exist:
Bottom Line:
The problem isn't lack of evidence—it's unwillingness to accept it.
MISLEADING. Yes, some religious people have done evil—but:
Bottom Line:
Evil comes from human hearts, not from belief in God. Christianity restrains evil; atheism has no moral foundation to condemn it.
FALSE DICHOTOMY. Evolution and God are compatible:
Bottom Line:
Evolution is a mechanism, not a worldview. The question is: Did God guide the process?
WRONG DEFINITION. Biblical faith is trust BASED ON evidence:
Bottom Line:
Christian faith is reasonable trust in a reliable God, evidenced by history, philosophy, and experience.
EXAGGERATED. The Bible is 99.5% textually accurate:
Bottom Line:
The Bible is the most reliable ancient document in existence. Skeptics apply double standards.
HISTORICALLY FALSE. Modern science was founded by Christians:
Bottom Line:
Science and Christianity are allies, not enemies. The conflict is between naturalism and theism, not science and faith.
Best Books Responding to New Atheism:
Want More?
Explore our complete Skeptic Resource Library for philosophical arguments, historical evidence, and scientific apologetics.
In the mid-2000s, New Atheism seemed unstoppable. Books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett topped bestseller lists. Atheism was "cool" and intellectually fashionable. Christianity was declared "on the way out."
But by 2025, New Atheism is largely dead. What happened?
Professional philosophers—even atheist ones—demolished New Atheist arguments. Alvin Plantinga called Dawkins' philosophy "sophomoric." Thomas Nagel (atheist) said Harris and Dennett's work was "amateur hour." The Four Horsemen made elementary logical errors that undergraduates could spot.
New Atheism wasn't taken seriously in academic philosophy because it wasn't serious philosophy.
New Atheists dismissed billions of religious believers as "delusional," "stupid," or "immoral." This alienated moderates and made atheism look elitist and hostile. People don't respond well to being called idiots—even if you have a Ph.D.
Mockery isn't persuasive. It just makes you look like a jerk.
New Atheism couldn't ground objective morality. Harris tried to build ethics on "well-being," but couldn't justify why well-being matters. Dawkins admitted morality is an "evolutionary accident" with no objective basis. Hitchens appealed to moral outrage but had no foundation for it.
If atheism is true, Hitler and Mother Teresa are just rearranged atoms. New Atheists couldn't escape this conclusion.
Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Alister McGrath, and Tim Keller wrote devastating rebuttals. Public debates exposed the Four Horsemen's weak arguments. Young Christians got equipped and stopped being intimidated.
The Church didn't collapse. It got stronger, smarter, and more confident.
By 2015, culture moved on. Social justice, identity politics, and postmodernism replaced New Atheism. Younger atheists rejected the Four Horsemen's "white male" arrogance. "Reddit atheism" became a meme—a symbol of cringe, not cool.
New Atheism was a fad. It peaked, then faded like bellbottoms and disco.
The movement died with its leaders.
The Bottom Line
New Atheism was intellectually weak, morally bankrupt, culturally arrogant, and personally off-putting. It failed because it had nothing positive to offer—only mockery, condescension, and nihilism.
Christianity, by contrast, offers hope, meaning, purpose, and love. That's why the Church is still here—and New Atheism isn't.
Alvin Plantinga (Philosopher, Notre Dame):
"Dawkins' argument is at best a middle-grade undergraduate effort. It's sophomoric at best."
Plantinga systematically dismantled Dawkins' arguments in Where the Conflict Really Lies.
Thomas Nagel (Atheist Philosopher, NYU):
"Dennett and Harris are just amateur atheism. Their arguments wouldn't pass muster in a philosophy seminar."
Even atheist philosophers rejected New Atheism's simplistic approach.
John Lennox (Mathematician, Oxford):
"Dawkins confuses his scientific expertise with philosophical competence. He's brilliant at biology, terrible at philosophy."
Lennox publicly debated Dawkins and exposed his logical fallacies. Watch on YouTube!
William Lane Craig (Philosopher & Theologian):
"Hitchens was a great writer and debater, but his arguments against God were philosophically naive. He never engaged serious theistic arguments."
Craig's debates are masterclasses in rational apologetics.
Alister McGrath (Theologian & Former Atheist, Oxford):
"I was an atheist who became a Christian after studying science and theology. Dawkins' arguments were what I used to believe—until I realized how weak they were."
McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion? is a must-read rebuttal.
When you encounter New Atheist arguments, remember:
Know the evidence for Christianity better than atheists know their objections
Don't mirror their condescension. Win them with love, not mockery
Expose inconsistencies by asking: 'How do you explain X on atheism?'
Only the Holy Spirit changes hearts. Trust God, not your debating skills
You have nothing to fear from New Atheism. The truth is on your side.
Many who embraced New Atheism later discovered the truth of Christianity
Former Atheist Scientist
Oxford Professor, Theologian
Conversion Story:
McGrath was a committed atheist studying molecular biophysics at Oxford. As he delved deeper into science, he realized naturalism couldn't explain reality. He investigated Christianity intellectually and found it made better sense of science, morality, and human experience. Today he's one of the world's leading apologists.
"I realized that atheism was intellectually shallow. Christianity provided a far more satisfying explanation for reality."
— Alister McGrath
Key Book/Resource:
The Dawkins Delusion? (response to Dawkins)
Why This Matters:
His scientific credentials give him unique authority to respond to New Atheist claims about science 'disproving' God.
Former Militant Atheist
Renowned Christian Apologist (died 1963)
Conversion Story:
Lewis was an atheist professor at Oxford who believed Christianity was 'mythology.' Through friendships with J.R.R. Tolkien and studying literature, he realized the resurrection had stronger historical evidence than he'd thought. He converted at age 32 and became the 20th century's most influential Christian writer.
"I was at this time living, like so many Atheists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing."
— C.S. Lewis
Key Book/Resource:
Mere Christianity (still the #1 apologetics book)
Why This Matters:
Proved that brilliant intellects can embrace Christianity after honest investigation. His writings converted millions.
Hardcore Atheist Professor
Catholic Scholar & Author
Conversion Story:
Ordway was an English professor who mocked Christians and saw religion as irrational. Through studying literature (especially Tolkien and Herbert), she encountered compelling intellectual arguments. She reluctantly admitted evidence pointed toward God and converted in her 30s. She now teaches apologetics.
"I didn't want God to exist—but the evidence was undeniable. I had to follow truth wherever it led."
— Holly Ordway
Key Book/Resource:
Not God's Type: An Atheist Academic Lays Down Her Arms
Why This Matters:
Her story resonates with academics who think Christianity is 'anti-intellectual.' She proves the opposite.
Atheist Investigative Journalist
Bestselling Apologist
Conversion Story:
Strobel was an award-winning journalist for the Chicago Tribune and a vocal atheist. When his wife became a Christian, he set out to disprove Christianity using his investigative skills. After two years of research, he concluded the evidence for Jesus' resurrection was overwhelming. He converted in 1981.
"I was ambushed by the amount and quality of evidence for Christianity. As a journalist, I couldn't ignore it."
— Lee Strobel
Key Book/Resource:
The Case for Christ (bestseller, made into a movie)
Why This Matters:
His evidence-based approach has helped millions of skeptics investigate Christianity seriously.
Agnostic Scientist
Director of NIH, Former Human Genome Project Director
Conversion Story:
Collins was a self-described 'obnoxious atheist' as a grad student. While studying medicine, a dying patient asked about his beliefs, and he realized he'd never seriously investigated Christianity. He read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, studied evidence, and converted. He led the Human Genome Project and remains a devout Christian.
"DNA is God's language. The elegance and complexity of the genetic code point unmistakably to an intelligent Designer."
— Francis Collins
Key Book/Resource:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Why This Matters:
As one of the world's top scientists, his Christian faith dismantles the myth that 'smart people don't believe in God.'
Hardcore New Atheist
Astrophysicist & Apologist
Conversion Story:
Salviander grew up atheist and studied astrophysics at the University of Texas. She embraced New Atheism and Dawkins's writings. But cosmological fine-tuning and the Big Bang's implications troubled her. She investigated Christianity, was converted by the evidence, and now writes apologetics from a scientific perspective.
"The universe's fine-tuning screamed 'design.' As a scientist, I couldn't ignore it. Atheism became intellectually untenable."
— Sarah Salviander
Key Book/Resource:
Numerous apologetics articles and talks
Why This Matters:
Her astrophysics background makes her uniquely qualified to address cosmological arguments for God.
Atheist Journalist (Christopher's brother)
Christian Writer & Journalist
Conversion Story:
Peter Hitchens was a committed atheist and Marxist, just like his famous brother Christopher. He lived a hedonistic lifestyle in the 1960s-70s. A near-death experience and seeing Rogier van der Weyden's painting 'The Last Judgment' shook him. He gradually realized atheism offered no hope, meaning, or morality. He converted to Christianity.
"I feared there might be a God after all—and that terrified me. I had lived as if He didn't exist, and I'd have to answer for it."
— Peter Hitchens
Key Book/Resource:
The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith
Why This Matters:
His conversion is particularly striking given his brother Christopher's militant atheism. Shows atheism's hollowness.
Atheist Lesbian Professor
Christian Author & Speaker
Conversion Story:
Butterfield was a tenured English professor, lesbian activist, and vocal atheist. A pastor's kind response to her anti-Christian article intrigued her. She began reading the Bible to critique it but found herself confronted by its truth. She converted, left her lesbian lifestyle, married a pastor, and now writes about her transformation.
"I didn't want Christianity to be true—but truth doesn't care what we want. I had to surrender to reality."
— Rosaria Butterfield
Key Book/Resource:
The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert
Why This Matters:
Her story demonstrates Christianity's power to transform even those hostile to it. Evidence and love won her over.
Atheist Skeptic
Lawyer, Theologian, Apologist
Conversion Story:
Montgomery was a skeptical atheist studying at Cornell University. A Christian friend challenged him to investigate Christianity's historical claims. As a law student, he applied legal-historical methods to the Gospels and concluded Jesus' resurrection had overwhelming evidence. He converted and became a leading apologist and lawyer-theologian.
"The resurrection of Jesus is the best-attested fact in ancient history. As a lawyer, I had to accept it."
— John Warwick Montgomery
Key Book/Resource:
History, Law and Christianity
Why This Matters:
His legal training gives him unique credentials to evaluate the historical evidence for Christianity.
Atheist Computer Programmer
Catholic Author & Radio Host
Conversion Story:
Fulwiler was raised atheist in a secular household. She believed science had all the answers. When her husband (also atheist) started questioning materialism, they investigated Christianity together. She realized atheism couldn't explain consciousness, morality, or meaning. She converted to Catholicism in 2007.
"Atheism is like being colorblind to half of reality. Christianity opened my eyes to truth I'd been missing."
— Jennifer Fulwiler
Key Book/Resource:
Something Other Than God: How I Passionately Sought Happiness and Accidentally Found It
Why This Matters:
Her story resonates with Millennials raised in secular culture. She shows Christianity is intellectually credible.
Many brilliant atheists have investigated Christianity and converted because the evidence is compelling. They didn't become Christians because of emotion, tradition, or social pressure—they followed the evidence. If atheism were intellectually superior, why do so many atheists convert to Christianity after honest investigation?
Watch Christians intellectually dismantle New Atheist arguments in live debates
Summary:
Craig systematically presented cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments while Hitchens resorted to emotional rhetoric. Most observers agreed Craig won decisively.
Outcome:
Craig won convincingly. Hitchens admitted afterward he wasn't prepared for Craig's philosophical arguments.
Why Watch This:
Shows the difference between emotional atheism (Hitchens) and rigorous Christian philosophy (Craig).
YouTube: Search 'Craig vs Hitchens Does God Exist'
Summary:
Craig argued objective moral values require God. Harris tried to ground morality in 'well-being' but couldn't explain WHY we ought to care about well-being without God.
Outcome:
Craig exposed the fatal flaw in atheistic morality: it's arbitrary and subjective. Harris had no answer.
Why Watch This:
Demonstrates atheism's inability to ground objective morality.
YouTube: Search 'Craig vs Harris Moral Landscape Debate'
Summary:
Lennox (Oxford mathematician) calmly dismantled Dawkins's arguments. Dawkins seemed unprepared for a serious intellectual challenge and grew visibly frustrated.
Outcome:
Lennox won. Even atheists admitted Dawkins was out of his depth debating philosophy.
Why Watch This:
Shows Dawkins's arguments collapse under scrutiny from a competent philosopher-scientist.
YouTube: Search 'Lennox vs Dawkins God Delusion Debate'
Summary:
Lennox graciously responded to Hitchens's emotional attacks with reasoned evidence and philosophical arguments. Hitchens's rhetoric couldn't match Lennox's substance.
Outcome:
Lennox presented compelling evidence; Hitchens relied on mockery. Most observers gave Lennox the win.
Why Watch This:
Illustrates how Christian love and reason can respond to hostility without compromising truth.
YouTube: Search 'Lennox vs Hitchens Is God Great'
Summary:
Krauss (physicist) claimed 'science shows something can come from nothing.' Craig demonstrated this was philosophical nonsense—'nothing' means NO THING, not 'quantum vacuum.'
Outcome:
Craig destroyed Krauss's central argument. Krauss looked unprepared and frustrated.
Why Watch This:
Exposes the sloppy thinking of prominent atheist scientists when they venture into philosophy.
YouTube: Search 'Craig vs Krauss Life, the Universe and Nothing'
Summary:
D'Souza defended Christianity's historical contributions (hospitals, universities, human rights) while Hitchens attacked religion's dark moments. D'Souza showed atheism's far worse track record.
Outcome:
D'Souza effectively used history to counter Hitchens's claims. Many declared D'Souza the winner.
Why Watch This:
Demonstrates Christianity's positive impact on civilization vs. atheism's murderous 20th century.
YouTube: Search 'D'Souza vs Hitchens Christianity Debate'
Summary:
Singer (atheist philosopher) is more sophisticated than the Four Horsemen. But Lennox showed even Singer's best arguments fail to account for fine-tuning, consciousness, and morality.
Outcome:
Respectful, high-level debate. Lennox made the stronger case for God's existence.
Why Watch This:
Shows even the best atheist philosophers struggle to answer theistic arguments.
YouTube: Search 'Lennox vs Singer Is There a God'
Summary:
Atkins (chemist) claimed science disproves God. Craig showed science actually points TO God (Big Bang, fine-tuning). Atkins had no response to philosophical arguments.
Outcome:
Craig won handily. Atkins's scientific credentials didn't help him in philosophical debate.
Why Watch This:
Illustrates the limits of science in addressing ultimate questions about God's existence.
YouTube: Search 'Craig vs Atkins Does God Exist'
Summary:
Zacharias excelled at Q&A format, graciously answering hostile questions from atheist students. His responses combined philosophy, Scripture, and personal compassion.
Outcome:
Zacharias consistently demonstrated Christianity's intellectual credibility and moral beauty.
Why Watch This:
Shows how to engage skeptics with truth AND love.
YouTube: Search 'Ravi Zacharias Q&A' (numerous sessions)
Don't just cheer for 'your side.' Evaluate arguments objectively. Who provides better evidence?
Watch for logical fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, red herrings). Atheists often use these when cornered.
After the debate, research claims made. Who's telling the truth? Christianity always wins when evidence is checked.
Explore more resources to strengthen your understanding
Access the complete skeptic journey guide in one comprehensive PDF. Everything you need for this stage, all in one place.
Continue your journey of investigation with these evidence-based resources