The Scientific Deception Of The New Atheists by Mohammad Hijab

According to the latest religious data from the British attitude survey, Muslims are more likely to retain their faith than any other religious group (93% retention) (Curtice et al., 2019). Moreover, the latest Pew Research study revealed that ‘the share of American Muslims who leave Islam is offset by those who become Muslim’ (Mohammed and Sciupac, 2018) with 23% leaving the faith in the USA. Reasons for leaving include a dislike for organised religion (12%), disbelieving in God (8%), never ‘connecting’ with the faith (8%), not being religious (5%) among others. Despite the lack of science or Darwinism in this study, it is vital to note that most participants could not speak English and required Farsi or Arabic translation. Moreover, those who left Islam in the USA Pew Survey were more likely to be immigrants from Iran (22%) (Pew Research Methodologies). These points may help explain disparities between UK and US Muslim faith retention estimates. Furthermore, these findings do not support Darwinian evolution as having a ‘revolutionary’ theological or demographic impact on the actual masses (either Muslim or Christian) in the Western world.

Rather, in both Muslim and Christian cases political ideology, like liberalism, or moral arguments against religion (sometimes with liberal assumptions which undermine key teachings of religion) were most influential as noted by Matthew Sheard, who ran his own study with 98 atheist participants concluding:

As with Budd’s study, the reasons subjects gave for their unbelief included anti-religious causes; objections to theology were as prevalent as traumatic experiences of religion or personal traumas that caused religious doubts. However, though rationalism, atheistic political radicalism and contact with atheists constituted about a quarter of the reasons given, there was very little reference to the ‘rationalist classics’, to science, or to Darwinism (Sheard, 2014, p.12).

There is little to no evidence that Darwinian evolution creates apostasy in Christian and Muslim faith communities, rather, that it creates doubt as investigated by Youssef Chouhoud.

Chouhoud studied 600 Muslim participants from a cross-section of society identifying what causes them to ‘doubt’. 8% of participants attributed their ‘great deal of doubt’ to Darwinian evolution compared to 14% who attributed it to religiously dogmatic attitudes (Chouhoud, 2018, p.6). Ultimately, scientific arguments used by New Atheist apologists may not be instrumental in causing religious apostasy within Muslim or Christian faith communities, however, the scientific arguments were marginally effective in changing the minds of Christians and Muslims.

New Atheists use both book sales and social media to enhance their message, with YouTube videos featuring heavily and New Atheist material being freely available on a variety of non-official sites. Only a few New Atheists have their own YouTube channels including Richard Dawkins who has a channel titled ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason’ which, despite infrequently posting videos, still has 334, 000 subscribers (18 April 2020). Sam Harris has an official YouTube channel titled ‘Sam Harris’ with 394,000

subscribers (18 April 2020). Other New Atheists, like Lawrence Krauss, host minor channels having 3,140 subscribers (18 April 2020) and are, therefore, not worthy for consideration.

Analysing these YouTube figures through Google Trends, puts these figures into perspective.

By comparing YouTube search interest of Richard Dawkins against a popular T.V.

personality; specifically, the UK social commentator Piers Morgan, from the years 2008 to the present (18 April 2020), Morgan scores 16 ‘average points’ to Dawkins’s 10 over this period.

Analysing ‘web searches’ instead for the same period, establishes an average score of 11

points for Morgan to Dawkins’s 4. If these comparisons are replicated in the US, Dawkins’s social impact lessens. If we compare Sam Harris’ YouTube Google Trends data with the social commentator Joe Rogan for the same period (2008 till April 2020) we find Rogan scores on average 23 points to Harris’ 3 points. Considering that Dawkins and Harris are the most popular New Atheists, it is difficult to imagine that their social media activity can sufficiently influence demographic change or apostasy among Christians or Muslims in the English-speaking Western world.

New Atheists have more followers on Twitter than other platforms. Twitter, being a text-based programme with limitations on numbers of characters, is a difficult platform through which to alter people’s opinions. Nevertheless, having collected the twitter time-lines of the most prominent New Atheists with the aim of analysing re-tweets, likes and responses, I have assessed whether New Atheists have been successful in changing people’s minds on these issues by employing the previously outlined scientific arguments. Methodologically, I encountered two primary issues (that Twitter limits the number of time-line tweets to 3200)

(see Twitter website). Moreover, even after consultation with Data Scientists to mitigate these issues, I could not identify a way to access the accounts of those who ‘retweeted’ or ‘liked’ a said post.

Following collation of the time-lines of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, A. C. Grayling, Lawrence Krauss and Peter Singer, I used key words to establish the number of times these key figures attempted to use their scientific arguments against the ‘God thesis’ on twitter. Keywords included, but were not limited to, ‘bible’, ‘Quran’ ,‘creation’, ’intelligent design’, ‘creationism’, ‘creationist’, ‘Darwin’, ‘Darwinism’ among others. The objective was to establish the efficacy of these tweets on re-tweeters or likers by tracking their behaviour before and after the post was made. Unfortunately this was deemed unnecessary as only four tweets, from Richard Dawkins, seemed to be relevant to the scientific arguments against the God narrative emphasised in New Atheist writings, and all were retweeted from other accounts. The tweet ID’s were 918078516608032000, 918078459569737729, 918078401264717000 and 918078321820340225 and they were unextraordinary. For example, Dawkins retweets ‘ “Without God, living things couldn’t be so complex, elegant and functional.” If that’s what you think, go away and learn some biology.’ (Dawkins, Twitter). This statement lacks an argument and confers minimal impact on anyone wanting to apostatise. The comment section of the tweet further outlines the extent to which Dawkins’s twitter resembles an atheistic echo chamber, with the most liked comments originating from those already expressing similar sentiments to Dawkins’s.