The 'New Atheists' have got the religionists publicly on the run -- the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the wonderfully blunt Christopher Hitchens have taken the battle to the mystics in books like The God Delusion, The End of Faith and God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and given rational people much entertainment as they've made the defenders of faith-based superstition squirm.
So why are they taking a beating from inanities like these from Christian Dinesh D'Souza:
Thanks to the astounding discoveries of modern science, I think the God hypothesis has a lot more going for it today than it did in the eighteenth century.
Why is that so difficult to counter? As Greg Perkins explains, their stumbling point is their failure to account for one seemingly simple question: "How do you explain the existence and order of the universe, the staggering complexity of life, the existence of morality, and so on -- without God?" In the third part of a series exploring the key weaknesses in their philosophical foundations that effectively disarm the 'New Atheists,' Perkins suggests there is still much for them to learn -- and illustrates how D'Souza "wouldn't stand a snowball's chance against an Objectivist." [Hat tip Nick Provenzo and this week's Objectivist Carnival]