The Irrationality of the "New Atheists"

There is a new breed of religious zealots storming the American fields. They differ from the current bunch by actively disbelieving in the supernatural. The heathen amongst us who retain some faith in a G-d are responsible for war and little girls' fresh tears. The imagery they conjure up is every bit as suspenseful as the Bible, travesties of mankind are simply a result of active self-dillusion and once we turn away from the ignorance that religion enforces, in order to promulgate itself, mankind can focus on the sciences and operate only on assumptions that are provable, logical, and, dare I say, not supernatural.

The problem with Atheists claiming a mantle of rationalism is that they are no more rational than their bible-thumping kin across the table. This is because the assumption that G-d does exist is no more logically proveable or rational than the suggestion that G-d does not exist. Indeed, there is no way to prove such a supposition either way. To somehow suggest that Atheists have a leg-up in the rationalism game is absurd and ignores great rationalists who came to believe in some form of deity, whether it be a prime mover or some other controlling force.

The problem with a position that can be neither proven nor disproven is that it takes faith to take a position. I may say that I don't believe in G-d because there is no way for science to prove the matter but I would logically be at fault because I would ignore the fact that science has no way of disproving G-d. To take such a position and pretend as if the weight of science supports you is as dangerous as creationists who rely on statistics to disclaim the ability of evolution to exist. Atheists are as guilty as religious fanatics for damaging science when they rely on science to prove or disprove the existence of G-d.

When we suggest science has accomplished something we suggest that a hypothesis has been forwarded and that a test has been created and that the results of those tests are repeatable under the same controls. This is how science advances human understanding. When we suggest that science has disproved a hypothesis, in this case G-d, we would need to provide a test for all people to perform or results that all people have access to in order for science to be relied upon as a useful resource. If we claim science has delivered a result it can not, it damages the perception of the scientific method as a valuable tool for human learning.

Belief in one's own assumption without evidence is the very epitome of faith. The difference between an atheist and a religious-advocate to a true rationalist is only in the asuumption they are beginning from, neither has any real proof to support their contention. Both should stop damaging the reputation of science in their kerygmatic endeavors. Anything less is simply irrational.