The
incompetencies of the so-called new-wave atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens
exposed them as being intellectual lightweights in the subjects of faith,
theology and philosophy, where only the desperate special-pleaders took the
arguments in their anti-God books seriously. In recent years, there has been an
emergence of what I'm calling the new-new-wave atheists - folk like Graham
Oppy, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and John Loftus (with whom I met up for a YouTube discussion) - who purport to be making
more sophisticated contributions to the debate than their forerunners.
Even if they've raised the bar slightly, at most it looks to have gone up from ankle height to knee height - not because these aren't fairly bright individuals, but because the case against Christianity only ever emanates from these faithless vainglorians by severely under-representing the quality of what the faith has to offer.
Perhaps one of the great unrealised pieces of wisdom or most neglected truths in the world is that the reason there are no defeaters for Christianity - intellectually, emotionally, morally, philosophically, psychologically - is because you can only attempt to defeat Christianity by not understanding it sufficiently; and to begin to understand it sufficiently is to begin to see that it is the truth, and the right path to the one true God. By analogy, it's rather like trying to undermine the virtues of generosity, honesty and kindness - you can only do so with an ungenerous, dishonest, unkind attempt to subvert them.
The main defect of the new-wave-atheists, the new-new-wave-atheists, and the countless sanctimonious unbelievers who flaunt their cognitive ineptitude on their online comments pages (avoid engaging with them – it is almost always a waste of time), is that they are so thoroughly and confidently satisfied with their own sub-standard grasp of the subjects, and that they pay such scant regard to the real complexity and gravitas of the matters on which they so frivolously wax lyrical.
On top of that, there is an even subtler observation I've made about these folk, of a more psychological nature - it's that almost all of these sceptics would refer to themselves as ex-Christian (or from a church background), and I think that has real relevance in how they conduct themselves, and on how they yearn to be perceived by outsiders. Reading between the lines - and John Loftus is a classic case of this, I would say - what these new-new-wave atheists are really expressing is emotional disappointment in how their church life played out, disenchantment in their experience of other Christians, dissatisfaction that they didn't have the attention, status and prestige they craved, and in many cases an anti-fundamentalist resistance in the teeth of mainstream empirical human achievements to which their former religious affiliates would have no assent.
And I think if we drilled down deeper, we'd find at the root that the emotional disappointment in how their church life played out, and the disenchantment in their experience of other Christians, were both the result of their deepfelt dissatisfaction that they didn't have the attention, status and prestige they craved. This condition is a phenomenon I've called Promethean Ego Apostasy (or PEA for short). PEA is the turning away from the disappointment of not having their ego stroked enough by the Christian faith, and its honest appraisal of our true humanly flawed and fallen state, and rebelling against it with a desire for personal empowerment and ego enhancement. Just like Prometheus, who defied the gods to steal fire to bring to humanity, PEA syndrome is an act of defiance against the Christian faith in an attempt to court attention, status and reputation by placing oneself as the head of one's life, overrule God, and attempt to enjoy all the perceived transitory perks that come from an egocentric, narcissistic dissent.
Perhaps the most transparent case of PEA syndrome I've seen is with the ex-pastor and now atheist writer John Loftus, who I spoke with on my show for over 2 hours, and whose Facebook posts I see on a regular basis. I quite liked John, but he is perhaps the epitome of new-new-wave atheist PEA syndrome: what I discerned through the subtext of our conversation was a man for whom his life in the Christian church had not brought him the admiration and recognition he desired. Whenever I tried to gently probe into his past life, he clammed up and wouldn't go there. Perhaps the past is too painful or embarrassing for him - but I suspect the real reason he clammed up is because he feared that a more open and honest discussion would have exposed the weaknesses and insecurities he tries so hard to hide - especially around the regard he has so fervently sought, and that he believes he can acquire from his atheist apologetics.
On top of that, perhaps he faced shame in his pastoral position, and found the only psychological resource was to claim the whole belief system to be false rather than seek forgiveness and reconciliation with God. His wiki page says "In light of an extramarital affair, Loftus had a crisis of faith and eventually rejected Christianity" - and I don't know if it's true, but if it's false, surely Loftus would have had it taken down by now. If it's true, Loftus no doubt felt feelings of guilt and shame, probably leading him to question his worthiness within his church community, to feel hypocritical and lack the moral authority to lead others in matters of spirituality and ethics, and to feel isolated and therefore distance himself from the faith and his pastoral responsibilities. And given the foregoing, a likely comfort blanket would have been to repudiate the belief system itself, in an attempt to relinquish responsibility and let himself off more lightly.
Even if the extramarital affair wiki entry is false, those same temptations probably would have come to the fore if the matter was egocentric conciliation and the hankering for admiration and esteem. John Loftus' current atheistic apologetics, his book sales, and his following on Facebook give him the much longed for approval and validation that the call to humility and servility in pastoral ministry never provided, because in the Christian faith, the primary praise, worship and sovereignty goes to God, not us.
More than most other groups of people, John Loftus, Richard Carrier, and the majority of their fellow new-new-wave-atheists I've observed, desperately seek praise and endorsement from every post they share - the kind of self-absorbed praise and endorsement they never could have found in the Christian life, because Christian living won't stroke their ego enough, or provide the psychological comfort, or the ethical flexibility, or the lax responsibility they think they get with their Promethean Ego Apostasy.
I do not, of course, mean to evoke PEA as a character assassination - for in many ways, it is one of the more modest conceits of humanity; not being secure enough in oneself that one has to solicit it in the consent of others by turning upside down the noble Christian virtues like humility, grace, sacrifice and responsibility in knowing oneself truthfully in relation to God's power, His love and His goodness. But, then again, we shouldn't be surprised; the primary sin has always been the one in which we choose self ahead of God, and deny Him the place in our lives as Lord, Creator and Saviour.
