Atheistas na Sabon Zamani suna ganin Darwiniyanci a matsayin hanya ta kusan karyata wanzuwar Allah. Misali, Richard Dawkins ya bayyana babbar hujjar da ke adawa da 'hasashen Allah' a cikin littafinsa ta hanyar taƙaita ta zuwa maki shida. Ya kammala da cewa idan aka karɓi hujjar, 'tushen addini na gaskiya – hasashen Allah – ba zai yiwu ba. Allah kusan ba ya wanzuwa' (Dawkins, 2006, shafi na 156). Da farko, ya yi iƙirarin cewa 'ɗaya daga cikin manyan ƙalubale ga hankalin ɗan adam, a cikin ƙarnoni, shi ne bayyana yadda kamannin tsari mai sarƙaƙiya, wanda ba ya yiwuwa, ke tasowa,' kuma 'sha'awar da ta fi zama ta halitta ita ce a danganta kamannin tsari ga tsarin kansa.' Yana ƙara bayani kan maki na uku da na huɗu, Dawkins ya ci gaba da cewa, 'wannan sha'awa karya ce, domin hasashen mai tsarawa nan take yana tayar da tambayar wanda ya tsara mai tsarawa.' A wannan matsayi, Dawkins ya rubuta:

New Atheists view Darwinism as a means to almost disprove the existence of God. For instance, Richard Dawkins details the central argument against the ‘God thesis’ in his book by summarising it into six points. He concludes by stating that if the argument is accepted ‘the factual premise of religion – the God hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.156). Firstly, he claims that ‘one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design arises’ and that ‘the natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.’ Elaborating further on his third and fourth points, Dawkins continues, ‘the temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the question of who designed the designer’. At this point Dawkins writes:

Darwin da magadansa sun nuna yadda halittu masu rai, tare da yanayin rashin yiwuwar su ta fuskar lissafi da bayyanar tsari a jikinsu, suka samo asali a hankali-hankali daga farko mai sauki. Yanzu za mu iya cewa ba tare da shakka ba cewa bayyanar tsari a cikin halittu masu rai wani abu ne kawai na ruɗi (Dawkins, 2006, shafi 157-8).

Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion (Dawkins, 2006, p.157-8).

Ga Dawkins, Darwin "ya sa ya yiwu a zama mai ƙin Allah mai cikakkiyar gamsuwa ta hankali" (Dawkins, 1986, shafi na 2). Dawkins ya yarda cewa duniyar ilimin kimiyyar lissafi ba ta samar da wata ka'idar da take daidai da ka'idar juyin halittar Darwin ba, amma ya yi imani cewa aikin masana kimiyyar lissafi ne su nemo irin waɗannan ka'idojin sararin samaniya masu daidaito. Don haka Dawkins ya bayyana cewa:

For Dawkins, Darwin ‘made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’ (Dawkins, 1986, p.2). Dawkins admits that the world of physics has not resulted in an equivalent theory of Darwinian evolution, but believes it to be the responsibility of physicists to find such equivalent cosmological theories. To this end Dawkins states:

Kuma ko da yake Darwinism bazai kai tsaye ya shafi duniyar marar rai ba – misali ilimin sararin samaniya (cosmology) – yana tayar da hankalinmu a fannonin da ke wajen yankinsa na asali, wato ilimin halittu (Dawkins, 2006, p.113).

And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the inanimate world – cosmology for example – it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology (Dawkins, 2006, p.113).

Saboda haka, a cewar Dawkins, Darwin kaɗai ne ya ba masu kafirci damar gabatar da hujja mai ƙarfi game da hujjar tsari (argument from design) – wadda, a cewar Dawkins, "a takaice dai, ita ce hujjar da masu koyarwar halitta suka fi so" (Dawkins, 2006, p.113). Dawkins yana ganin ambaton Allah ba shi da amfani, domin "Allah ba zai yi wani abu ba" don rayayyun halittu su kasance yadda suke (Dawkins, 2006, p.118). Don haka, hujja ta farko ta Sabbin Masu Kafirci ita ce Darwin ya karyata, a zahiri, shaidar da ta fi ƙarfi a kan mai zane ta hanyar juyin halitta.

Therefore, according to Dawkins, it is Darwin and Darwin alone who allows atheists to articulate a cogent case against the argument from design – which is to Dawkins ‘in a nutshell the creationists’ favourite argument’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.113). Dawkins considers reference to God as superfluous as ‘God wouldn’t have to do anything at all’ for living beings to be the way they are (Dawkins, 2006, p.118). Hence, the first argument of the New Atheists is that Darwin effectively disproves the strongest evidence for a designer through evolution.

Hujjojin Dawkins sun sha fama da raddi mai karfi a fannin falsafa. An gabatar da irin wadannan raddi da dama a muhawarori na jama'a da aka yi da shi. Misali, John Lennox ya karyata ra'ayin cewa juyin halittar Darwin bai dace da akidar Allah ba, inda ya ce: 'Dawkins yana yin kuskuren rarrabuwa, yana rikita inji da wakili' (Fixed Point Foundation, 2017, 00:30:55). Dawkins da kansa, yana sane da iyakokin ilimin falsafarsa, ya yarda cewa shi 'ba masanin falsafa ba ne, kuma hakan zai bayyana a fili' (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 00:35:52). Duk da haka, matsayarsa tana samun goyon baya daga wasu abokan aikinsa masana falsafa, wadanda suke ganin Dawkins a matsayin 'abokin aiki kuma dan uwa a wannan tafarki' (Grayling, 2014).

Dawkins’s arguments have been heavily refuted on philosophical grounds. Many such refutations have been made to Dawkins in public debates. For example, John Lennox has refuted the point that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with the God thesis by stating that ‘Dawkins is making a category mistake, he is confusing mechanism with agency’ (Fixed Point Foundation, 2017, 00:30:55). Aware of his own philosophical limitations, Dawkins admits that he is ‘not a philosopher and that will be obvious’ (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 00:35:52). Nevertheless, Dawkins’s conclusions are shared by some of his philosopher associates who consider Dawkins ‘a colleague and fellow in the cause’ (Grayling, 2014).

A.C. Grayling, wanda muka lura cewa yana tare da sauran 'Sabbin Masu Kafirci', yana gabatar da hujjoji irin na Dawkins game da 'akidar Allah', yana cewa, 'bugu da kari, hasashen tsarin halitta ba shi da gaskiya domin yana neman bayar da bayani ta hanyar kiran wani abu da kansa ba a bayyana shi ba' (Grayling, 2013, shafi na 77). Kamar Dawkins, Grayling bai dauki lokaci mai yawa ba wajen yin muhawara da hujjojin falsafa da masu imani ke amfani da su; wato maganar 'sanadin da ba a haddasa shi ba' wanda ake bukata don karya jerin sanadi mara iyaka. Maimakon haka, ya zabi ya kawo Darwinism a matsayin hujja mai kisa ga akidar Allah. Ko da yake Grayling ya yarda da yawancin ra'ayoyin Dawkins, hujjarsa ta dan bambanta. Dawkins, yayin da yake magana kan daidaitawar dokokin duniya da kyau, ya ki amincewa da ra'ayin mai zane a matsayin hanya mai ma'ana, yana cewa, 'dole ne ya zama mai sarkakiya isa ya iya yin hakan' (Archbishop na Canterbury, 2012, 01:45:30).

A.C. Grayling, who we observed associating himself with other ‘New Atheists’, makes similar arguments against ‘the God thesis’ to Dawkins’s, claiming, ‘moreover the design hypothesis is implausible because it purports to offer an explanation by invoking something itself unexplained’ (Grayling, 2013, p.77). Similar to Dawkins, Grayling spends little time engaging with the stock philosophical theistic contentions; namely reference to an ‘uncaused cause’ as being necessary to break the infinite regress, rather, he opts to invoke Darwinism as a fatal argument against the God thesis. Though Grayling is in agreement with much of Dawkins’s claims, his argument differs slightly. In referencing the fine tuning of the universal constants Dawkins rejects the idea of a designer as a reasonable recourse stating ‘he’s got to be at least complicated enough to do that’ (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 01:45:30).

Farfesa Anthony Kenny, wanda ya jagoranci muhawarar tsakanin Dawkins da tsohon Archbishop Rowan Williams, ya binciki Dawkins ta hanyar bambance tsakanin sarkakiyar tsari da sarkakiyar aiki. Kenny ya gabatar da misali na kwatanta wani reza na lantarki da wani reza na yanka makogwaro, yana mai cewa ‘reza na yanka makogwaro ya fi sauki a tsarin zanensa amma yana da karfin aiki mafi sarkakiya fiye da reza na lantarki’, sai Dawkins ya amsa da cewa ‘ban ga abin da kake nufi ba sosai’, yayin da masu sauraro a Jami'ar Oxford ke dariya a baya (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 01:56:40). Tun da ya keɓe shafuka biyu ga hujjar zane da biyar ga hanyoyin Thomas Aquinas guda biyar, yana da kyau a kammala cewa gudunmawar falsafa ta Dawkins ga ilimin zamani game da hujjojin gargajiya kusan babu ita. Duk da haka, ana ta muhawara kan hujjojin Dawkins har zuwa wani mataki na ba'a da wulakanci na ad hominem. Domin jaddada wannan batu, Alister McGrath ya rubuta cewa a lokacin da Dawkins ya zo kan:

Professor Anthony Kenny, who chaired the debate with Dawkins and the ex-Archbishop Rowan Williams, probed Dawkins by differentiating between complexity of structure and complexity of function. Kenny presented the example comparing an electric razor with a cut throat razor and stating that ‘the cut throat razor is more simple in design but has more complex powers than the electric razor’ to which Dawkins replied, ‘I really don’t see what you are saying’ as the Oxford university audience laughed in the background (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 01:56:40). Having dedicated two pages to the design argument and five to Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, it is safe to conclude that Dawkins’s philosophical contribution to academia regarding classic arguments has been virtually non-existent. Nevertheless, Dawkins’s arguments are contested to a point of ad hominem ridicule and degradation. To emphasise this point, Alister McGrath writes that when Dawkins comes to:

Idan ya zo kan duk wani abu da ya shafi Allah, sai ya shiga wata duniya daban, duniyar wata ƙungiyar muhawara ta yara ƙanana a makaranta, wadda ta dogara da kalamai masu zafi da kuzari fiye da kima, da kuma gurɓatattun sauƙaƙan bayani masu ban mamaki, tare da yawan murɗa gaskiya fiye da sau ɗaya (McGrath, 2007, p.9).

deal with anything to do with God he seems to enter a different world, it is a world of a schoolboy debating society, relying on rather heated, enthusiastic overstatements, spiced up with some striking oversimplifications and more than occasional misrepresentation (McGrath, 2007, p.9).

Irin waɗannan genoralizations suna da alaƙa da scientism ɗin Dawkins a bayyane, da rashin kulawarsa (ko rashin sanin) su.

Such generalisations relate to Dawkins’s overt scientism, his disregard (or lack of awareness)

na falsafa da batutuwan tauhidi (tauhidi kuwa, Dawkins da alama bai yarda cewa "fanni ne ko kaɗan" ba (Dawkins, 2006, shafi na 57). Farfesa Michael Ruse, wanda shi ma mai musun Allah ne, ya ma wuce haka, yana cewa:

of philosophical and theological issues (theology being a subject that Dawkins does not appear to believe is ‘a subject at all’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.57). Professor Michael Ruse, an atheist himself, goes further than this stating:

Na rubuta cewa The God Delusion ya sa ni jin kunya don in zama mai musun Allah, kuma na faɗi haka da gaske. Ina ƙoƙarin fahimtar yadda Allah zai iya kasancewa ba tare da wata sanadi ba, sai Kiristoci suka ce Allah yana wanzuwa ta larura. Na yi ƙoƙari sosai don in fahimci abin da hakan yake nufi.

I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means.

Dawkins da abokan aikinsa ba su san irin waɗannan da'awowi ba, kuma suna nuna ƙyama sosai ga duk wanda ma ya yi ƙoƙarin fahimtarsu, balle ya yi imani da su. Saboda haka, kamar ɗalibin shekara ta farko a jami'a, yana iya cikin farin ciki ya yi ta tambaya da babbar murya, "Wane ne ya halicci Allah?" kamar dai ya gano wani babban abu na falsafa (Archbishop na Canterbury, 2009).

Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2009).

Dennett, kamar Dawkins, yana yin izgili tare da guje wa cikakken bayani da karyatawa na hujjojin Dalili na Farko na gargajiya, yana mai cewa:

Dennett, much like Dawkins, ridicules and evades a full explication/refutation of the classical first cause arguments claiming:

Wasu mutane sun fi son ci gaba da zurfafa cikin asirai marasa iyaka, a fili, amma a wannan zamani farashin hakan ya yi tsada sosai: dole ne mutum ya bari a yaudare shi (Dennett, 1995, shafi na 26).

Some people would much prefer the infinite regress of mysteries, apparently, but in this day and age the cost is prohibitive: you have to get yourself deceived (Dennett, 1995, p.26).

Wataƙila abin da aka fi sukar game da tsarin New Atheist shi ne yadda yake tafiya daga ilimin kimiyyar halitta zuwa falsafar addini. Dangane da wannan, McGrath ya ce:

Perhaps the most critiqued aspect of the New Atheist approach is its progression from the natural sciences to religious philosophy. In this regard, McGrath states:

Matsalar gaskiya a gare ni ita ce yadda Dawkins yake ci gaba daga ka'idar juyin halitta ta Darwin zuwa ga ra'ayin duniya na rashin imani da Allah, wanda yake yadawa da himma irin ta almasihu da kuma tabbaci marar tsoro (McGrath, 2006, p.10).

The real issue for me is how Dawkins proceeds from a Darwinian theory of evolution to a confident atheistic world-view which he preaches with messianic zeal and unassailable certainty (McGrath, 2006, p.10).

John Gray yana ganin cewa yunƙurin da masu Sabon Ateism suke yi na amfani da kimiyya wajen ƙoƙarin karyata "hasashen Allah" (God hypothesis) abu ne da ba shi da tushe.

John Gray considers the New Atheist manipulation of science in attempting to disprove the ‘God hypothesis’ as:

Tattaunawar da ta faru a zamanin Victoria tsakanin kimiyya da addini ce kawai ake sake maimaitawa, abin gajiyarwa. Amma tunanin cewa addini ya kunshi wasu ra'ayoyi da aka riga aka watsar da su, shi kansa ra'ayi ne da aka riga aka watsar da shi - wani gutsuri ne na falsafar karni na sha tara da ake kira positivism (Gray, 2018, p.9).

A tedious re-run of a Victorian squabble between science and religion. But the idea that religion consists of a bunch of discredited theories is itself a discredited theory - a relic of the nineteenth-century philosophy positivism (Gray, 2018, p.9).

Gray ya gano kamanceceniyar da ke tsakanin waɗannan ra'ayoyi da na Auguste Comte a cikin Catchechisme Positiviste (1852) (Gray, 2018, p.10). Duk da haka, New Atheism ya wuce zato na masu falsafar positivism cewa magana marar ma'ana ko ta metaphysical ba ta da amfani, domin yana nufin ƙaryata addini ta hanyar amfani da kimiyya. Irin wannan hanya an soki ta saboda rashin bambanta a hankali tsakanin metaphysical naturalism da methodological naturalism, kamar yadda Massimo Pigliucci ya rubuta:

Gray identified similarities between these ideas and those of Auguste Comte in Catchechisme Positiviste (1852) (Gray, 2018, p.10). However, New Atheism transcends positivist assumptions of meaningless or metaphysical discourse as it aims to disprove religion using science. Such an approach has been criticised as it lacks careful distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism as noted by Massimo Pigliucci who writes:

Muhimmin abin da ake nufi a nan shi ne cewa masanin kimiyya, a zahiri ta ma'anar kanta, mai bin hanyar binciken dabi'a ne (methodological naturalist); sai dai ba ta da wata alkawarin musamman (sai dai ra'ayinta na falsafa kanta) ga falsafar dabi'a (philosophical naturalism). A wata ma'anar kuma, kimiyya ba lallai ba ne ta kai ga kafirci (atheism), wanda shi ne tsoron masu tsattsauran ra'ayi (Pigliucci, 2006, p.2).

The crucial point here is that a scientist is, essentially by definition, a methodological naturalist; however, she does not have any specific commitment (aside from her own metaphysical views) to philosophical naturalism. In other words, science does not necessarily entail atheism, which is the fundamentalist's fear (Pigliucci, 2006, p.2).

Pigliucci ya ƙara da cewa:

Pigliucci furthers this by adding:

Saboda haka, akwai dalili mai kyau da yasa masana kimiyya da yawa kansu masu addini ne, kuma kuskure ne (duka ta fuskar hulɗar jama'a da kuma ta fuskar falsafa) a yi watsi da wannan gaskiyar.

There is, therefore, a good reason why many scientists are themselves religious , and it is a mistake (both in terms of public relations and from a philosophical standpoint)

don a tabbatar da cewa ra'ayin kimiyya ya kai ga kafirci, to ba zai yiwu ba. Kimiyya ba ta iya ba, kuma ba ta bukatar, yin karo kai-tsaye da addini (Pigliucci, 2006, p.2).

to present the scientific worldview as if it necessarily leads to atheism. Science can neither afford, nor does it need, a head-on confrontation with religion (Pigliucci, 2006, p.2).

Elliott Sober ya yi koyi da Pigliucci yana cewa:

Elliott Sober echoes Pigliucci stating:

Ga wasu mutane, ka'idar Newton da ka'idar Darwin suna nuna cewa babu Allah. Sai dai wannan ba abin da waɗannan ka'idoji suke faɗa ba ne; fassara ce ta falsafa da ke buƙatar ƙarin hujjoji (Sober, 2009, p.376).

For some people, Newtonian theory and Darwinian theory suggest that there is no God. However, this is not what these theories say; it is a philosophical interpretation that requires additional premises (Sober, 2009, p.376).