Search

In this article I examine the contemporary discourses and debates that surround the sociology of spirituality, with especial attention to the term "spirituality". To counter the widespread belief that this term lacks clarity and utility, I suggest reconsidering Max Weber's use of the term "spirit," as it refers to a recognisable ethic that results in specific behaviour, while still retaining its religious and spiritual connotations. Through focusing on two influential English figures in the post 9/11 God debate in the West, Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong, I provide a brief case study of how Weber's understanding of "spirit" serves great utility in illuminating what drives the ideas, identity-making and behaviour of contemporary atheists and those defending religion. By utilising Weber's "spirit," rather than the term spirituality, I demonstrate that this enables us to dig deep into the social context and backgrounds of these two individuals, and to avoid taking their statements at face value – a common criticism of sociology of spirituality studies. I argue that the use of "spirit," in terms of a recognisable ethic that results in specific behaviour, would benefit the sociology of spirituality. This is because it grounds the God debaters' ideas and beliefs in a recognisable human experience that eludes reductive distinctions and disembodied abstractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The New Atheist movement has been called “fundamentalist” in its allegiance to science. While true that New Atheism is remarkable among the various historical formations of atheism for its championing of the sciences, it is not fundamentalist. Where it does share a resemblance to Christian fundamentalism is in their respective attachments to a salvific epistemology either of science or of faith. For New Atheists, science “saves” as it provides order against chaos. This paper focuses on the writings of the New Atheist Sam Harris, drawing attention not just to the ordering function of science generally but also the ways in which Harris deploys science to engulf 1) morality, 2) the Buddhist belief that the self is an illusion, and 3) Buddhist practices of meditation. This study illuminates some affective potencies of science (or other potential epistemologies) as an ordering, and therefore “salvific,” way of navigating the world.

New atheism is a new movement that has been active since the beginning of this century. This movement, founded by thinkers, such as Dawkins, Dennet, Sam Harris and Hitchens, has used fundamental concepts such as rationalism to justify its principles. The founders of this movement have tried to use this fundamental concept to make atheism appear rational, and belief in God completely irrational. They have done this by stating the merits and benefits of disbelief in God and the disadvantages and harms of belief in God. In this article, which is written in an analytical- descriptive way, we aim to critique rationalism. For this purpose, first we get to know what rationalism is. Then we will show how the new atheists have used this concept in favor of atheism and in rejecting theism. In the end, relying on the thoughts of philosophers, we will critique rationalism. Rationalism as another reading of scientism, rationalism as another interpretation of profit maximization, rationalism as the ground for separating knowledge from value, and rationalism as a school that does not pay attention to its goals are just some of the criticisms that have been made against this school. Taking these criticisms into account, all the problems that affect scientism, utilitarianism, and the view of separating knowledge from value will also affect this school. With this description, this school cannot be a good justification for the new atheism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the ideas in the debates concerning anti-Islamic activities is that atheists, especially prominent celebrity atheists – commonly known as ‘New Atheists’ – have provided support and justification for anti-Islamic attitudes and activities. Given that Sam Harris, one of the so-called New Atheists, stated that he started writing his first book, The End of Faith (2004), immediately after the 9/11 attacks, criticism of Islam is expected to be prevalent among some atheists. The more interesting questions, however, concern what kind of criticism there is, how to make sense of its reasons and motivations, whether it dominates the New Atheist agenda (as some argue), and whether the criticism has been somehow influential in various localities. In examining New Atheist publications and their possible presence at the local level, particularly in Finland, this article suggests that an exceptionally pronounced anti-Islamic approach applies mainly to Harris rather than to New Atheism as a whole. Instead, several other significant aspects come into play, highlighted by other New Atheists, and this is largely true of local atheist activism too. Thus, while a weak link between New Atheists and anti-Islamic activities can be made because of their promotion of strong criticism of religion, New Atheism is not the key to understanding such activities, at least in the Finnish context.

The theory of secularization has long been at the forefront of the philosophical discourse of the 20th century. The secular perception of social processes could not help but influence their dynamics, the decisions made by people at different levels of social life. What is allowed for a person in the world where religions no longer form the basis of social behavior and the centuries-old foundations of social life are considered canceled? The author seeks to analyze previous attempts to comprehend the problem of violence in modern culture through philosophical theories, which regard radical secularization as one of the key characteristics of modernity. At the same time, the author refers, among other things, to the study of various approaches to the problem of moral relativism, including the perspectives of theistic and atheistic philosophy: on the one hand, represented by Radical Orthodoxy of John Milbank and Alasdair McIntyre; on the other hand, postmodernism (Gilles Deleuze and Jean Baudrillard), post-structuralism (Judith Butler), and Freudo-Marxism (Slavoj Zizek). All the above-mentioned philosophers associate radical secularism with the escalation of violence in society. The study identifies the meeting point of perspectives on the problem of violence in secular society: the absence of collectively shared values rooted in the discursive tradition inevitably generates and maintains moral relativism, the prevalence of which is generally proportional to the growth in the level of violence, including latent violence. The article suggests ways to mitigate the risks of secularization and moral relativism and puts forwards an argument for the importance of tradition and community in shaping moral values. The author also emphasizes the importance of considering the role of religion, particularly Christianity, in addressing this issue.

Atheism has had a strong presence on YouTube since its founding in the mid-2000s, which coincided with the rise of the new atheism movement, and lay atheists were quick to use the platform to spread new atheist ideas. Drawing from a sample of sixty-five atheist YouTube channels located and observed through online ethnographic methods, this article views YouTube videos as educational resources for atheists. It investigates different types of educational videos and ways of thinking about science, philosophy, and religion that atheist content creators utilize and promote. The analysis reveals that they consistently frame these domains of knowledge through the truth claims they make and generally construct them within a hierarchical framework, with scientific knowledge at the top and religious knowledge at the bottom. Overall, their educational content reproduces new atheist discourses around these subjects, revealing the continuing influence of new atheism, two decades after its emergence. Furthermore, the popularity of videos that debunk arguments from religious apologists suggests that the intended audience of these videos includes both atheists, who are expected to need to learn to defend their atheism in debate with religious others, and “potential atheists”, religious believers who can be deconverted using rational arguments.

Atheism is an ideology that rejects the existence of God and has gained increasing prominence in societies globally, including Malaysia. Atheism significantly challenges the religious orientation of Malaysian society. Specifically, atheism challenges spiritual and ethical foundations, unity, and cultural heritage linked to religious beliefs. Understanding these challenges is vital to formulate proactive measures, education, and informed dialogue to mitigate the negative impact of atheism on Malaysian society. This study explored the effects of atheism on Malaysian religious society via library research analysis. Scholarly articles, books, and reputable online resources on religious and atheism underwent content analysis, which yielded five key findings. Firstly, atheism leads to the loss of spiritual guidance and morality. Secondly, atheism potentially erodes ethical values and societal norms, and subsequently reduces social trust and cohesion. Thirdly, atheism contributes to moral relativism and ethical ambiguity, which potentially undermines established moral frameworks and social norms. Fourthly, atheism can weaken community cohesion. Lastly, ‎atheism threatens religious institutions and practices. Additionally, the absence of the role of God might undermine the cultural and heritage importance of religion. This study presented critical insights on the negative societal effects of atheism. By exploring the potential consequences of atheism on social cohesion, moral foundations, and existential perspectives, this study highlighted the need for religious education as part of atheism prevention and rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Yeni Ateizmin Dini: Bilimcilik adlı incelediğimiz eser Mehmet Şükrü Özkan tarafından kaleme alınmış, 2021 yılında Elis Yayınları’ndan çıkmıştır. İncelediğimiz bu çalışmada Özkan, yeni ateistlerin evrimi kendilerine dayanak noktası yaptıklarını ve evrimin onların iddia ettiği şekilde ‘gerçek’ ve ‘mutlak doğru’lar içermediğini belirtir. Ayrıca yeni ateistlerin herhangi bir eleştiri kabul etmeyen bilimci tavırlarını eleştiriye açmakta, sığ bilimci tutuma karşı bilim felsefesinin ufkumuzu genişletebileceğini ileri sürmektedir. Özkan, bilimin hangi ideoloji için kullanılırsa kullanılsın sınırlarını aşan söylemlere dayanak yapılmasının yanlış bir tutum olacağını da görüşlerine eklemektedir.

A leading figure of "new atheism", Sam Harris, maintains that religion and morality are in conflict. He, despite what religious believers generally think, does not take religion to be a basis for morality, instead, he believes that religion devastates morality and the moral system. In order to substantiate this claim, Harris takes two ways. First, based on some surveys, he argues that religious countries witness a moral decline, while atheist countries are morally in an acceptable situation. Accordingly, he seeks to induce by field studies that atheist countries are in a much better position than the theist countries in the moral indicators such as material well-being, respect for women's rights, human rights, etc.. As a result, it is atheism that has made society more moral. Second, by inspecting some religious doctrines, he decides that they are sources of violence and clashes among human beings and, consequently, lead societies toward moral decline. In this article, we examine Harris' claims concerning the relationship between religion and morality, concluding that they suffer from following flaws: not accurately determining the meaning of theism and atheism, misunderstanding about moarality and values, not paying attention to various indicators in human moral life, taking a weak scientific approach in evaluating the moral indicators of theist and atheist countries, not paying attention to the crimes of atheists throughout history, and having a superficial and false understanding of religious teachings.

Some thinkers of the modern period have reached the general opinion that the social appearance and social dynamics of religion have increased, and therefore, religion is on the rise. However, the historical and theological tensions between religions that sometimes lead to conflicts and the increase in disagreements between various sects of the same religion have led to an increase in criticism of religion as a whole in certain circles. Sam Harris is one of the important representatives of the new atheism, which is among the schools of thought that make these criticisms. In this study, I will discuss Harris' criticism of religion in which he argues that religious belief has many harmful and negative aspects. Therefore, he defends the view that it is necessary to fight against religion and to completely remove the phenomenon of religion from people's lives. This and other of Harris' basic claims, grounds, evidence, and views on the subject will be discussed, the persuasiveness and philosophical value of his basic approach will be examined through comparisons with rational and philosophical evaluations, and prominent dilemmas, if any, will be identified. The consistency of Harris' criticism of religious beliefs and the accuracy of these criticisms constitute the problematic of the study. The aim of this study is to examine the author's views through criticism, consider comparisons of this subject, and create a synthesis based on different approaches to the subject. To present this synthesis, the basic framework of this study is an examination of his The End of Faith: The Separation of Religion and Reason, Morality without God: A Guide for Spirituality without Religion, and The Harms of Religion: Conflicting Truth Claims of Religions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Yeni Ateizmin Dini: Bilimcilik was written by Mehmet Şükrü Özkan and published by Elis Publications in 2021. In this work, Özkan states that the new atheists have made evolution their main point of reference and that evolution does not contain 'truth' and 'absolute truths' as they claim. He also criticizes the scientism of the new atheists, which does not accept any criticism, and argues that the philosophy of science can expand our perspectives against the shallow scientistic attitude. Özkan adds that no matter which ideology science is used for, it would be wrong to use it as a basis for discourses that are beyond its limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new form of ethics suggested by the Francophone philosopher M. Onfray concerns, first of all, the resignation from faith in a transcendent God, which is substituted with an undefined sacrum (which is holy, highest) in immanence. This new form of ethics is, today, becoming a popular alternative to religious ethics. However, traditional, and new ethics should not be treated as separate sets, as they do not necessarily compete with each other. Systems of spiritual development related to specific denominations will always provide inspiration even for atheists’ ethics. The latter can indicate that, apart from religion, there is also a spirituality that can develop in a person. Nihilism is not the only alternative to religion, as sometimes the defenders of the old religious order try to show.

From a discourse analysis of Sam Harris' book Waking Up (2015) and from the discussion of concepts such as "spirituality" and "religion", the author addresses the consequences of the ideas of New Atheism, mainly on the scientifically determined need to abandon religion. The ideas of Sam Harris are compared with the ideas of René Descartes and Hannah Arendt. In consequence of this, the author addresses the scientificity of the book Waking Up and the consequences of its ideas, which can be considered authoritarian under the filter of Hannah Arendt ideas. Thus, seeking examples where spirituality is scientifically treated, a broader dialogue between theological knowledge and scientific knowledge is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Yeni Ateizmin Dini: Bilimcilik was written by Mehmet Şükrü Özkan and published by Elis Publications in 2021. In this work, Özkan states that the new atheists have made evolution their main point of reference and that evolution does not contain 'truth' and 'absolute truths' as they claim. He also criticizes the scientism of the new atheists, which does not accept any criticism, and argues that the philosophy of science can expand our perspectives against the shallow scientistic attitude. Özkan adds that no matter which ideology science is used for, it would be wrong to use it as a basis for discourses that are beyond its limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Nauk Teologicznych PAN is the property of Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee on Theological Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article aims to criticize the improbability argument put forth by Dawkins, which serves as the central thesis in the new atheism. Dawkins uses this thesis to justify religion as the root of evil and violence, while also forms the basis for the denial of the existence of God. The improbability argument fundamentally has some issues ontologically, epistemologically, and ethically. Dawkins constructs the improbability argument by referring to his explanation in “The Ultimate Boeing 747” and the theory of natural selection, in which he considers creation from nothingness to be as improbable as the spontaneous formation of a Boeing 747 from a tornado’s debris. Dawkins also criticizes the NOMA perspective that positions Science and Theology as equals. Through the framework of critical realism, this article demonstrates the philosophical problems in Dawkins’ improbability argument, which reduces reality (ontology) based on subjective perception (epistemology), and thus obscuring the uniqueness of natural phenomenon and negating the existence of God. Alternative ethical perspectives regarding religion and God are presented to address Dawkins’ accusations to religion as a source of evil and violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the human capacity of storytelling constitutes an important meta-textual motif in several of McEwan’s novels, Atonement (2001) is his prominent story about storytelling and its moral value. McEwan has at times suggested that narrative imagination can help us enter other people’s lives and thus forms a pre-condition for any contemporary morality. The article reads Atonement as an attempt to put this belief in narrativity to the test. Moreover, it addresses the role played by non-literary narratives in the self-understanding of individuals and groups. When asking how deeply narrative we are according to McEwan, the present article suggests that the key distinction the novel Atonement enables us to draw is not the one between the “narrativist” and “anti-narrativist” approach, but between two complementary experiences of time whose interplay makes our life unstable and prone to failures.

After 9/11, new atheists writers criticized all the religions of the world especially Islam. They linked world’s major conflicts and terrosrists attacks wih religions. Their objective is to defame religion and through this way weaken the belief of masses on the existence of God. Moreover, they want to promote atheist ideology across the world and erdaicte the role of religion in all sphere of human life. This study is an historical analysis about the common objection of new atheists that religion is the primary cause of wars and conflicts. This is qualitative reseach in which data is gathered through secondary sources; books, articles and online sources. The study finds that religion is not primary cause of wars and conflicts across the world. There are other economic and political factors and motives behind the wars, which are neglected by new atheists. Moreover, study explore that religion promotes peace and harmoney, atheist overlook this role of religion and emphasize only to attach religion with violence and anarchy. Islam prohibits the killings of innocent people and directs to save the lives of humanity. Muslim rulers have been treating with respect and diginity with non-Muslims in their regimes. Religion is necssary part of human life, and it develop individual as well as society with strong moral values. History shows that atheist regimes of the 20th century caused more bloodshed than the rest of the nineteen century. Stalin, Tito, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot are responsible for millions of murders. Blaming religion as the sole cause of violence in the world is illogiacal and irrational. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To have the right and possibility to criticize religions in public life is crucial for developing a healthy liberal democratic society. However, this criticism could take many different forms with respect to who offers the criticism, on what grounds it is based, its aim, what the target of the criticism is, and whom the critics try to convince. In this article, I develop a theoretical framework we can use to distinguish and assess different forms of criticism, focusing primarily on secular criticism of religion. Furthermore, I argue that in performing such a meta-study of criticism, it is vital that we reflect more carefully on how to develop plausible ethics of criticism. Finally, by comparing public criticism and academic criticism, I show that such ethics must be developed in a way that is sensitive to discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Religious truths from universal norms become a matter of individual taste. The idea of religion as a useful lie emerges, placing a human religious life in the sphere of socially lucrative. Violence which was inspired by a fanatical interpretation of religion at the beginning of the 21st century, has encouraged the publication of many works with pronounced atheistic ideas. The term "new atheism" was first mentioned in 2006 in the American magazine "Wired". The topic of the magazine was an increasingly large number of published books promoting anti-religious views, especially the works of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens Sam Harris and Dennett Daniel. Since then, the term "new atheism" has become more widely used, and it has been included by other contemporary thinkers. The propagandists of these ideas are very active on social networks, blogs and podcast programs. The titles of their best-selling books sound like popular slogans: God is not Great; Breaking the Spell; The End of Faith; Atheist manifesto... Reacting to this ideas, a group of famous thinkers appeared, publicly arguing with new atheists.

Traditionally, atheists have refuted the existence of God using philosophical arguments mainly. At present, new atheists deny the existence of God using scientific, moral and historical arguments. This addition in argumentation has given a slight rise to atheism in different parts of world as well as in Muslim countries. Muslim scholars have responded the atheistic thoughts but the response is still unknown in academic community. The study compares new atheist thinkers to Muslim scholars and analyzes the differences, especially with respect to evolution theory by Charles Darwin. With the aid of this theory, atheist scientists and intellectuals claim that science is enough for the explanation about the creation of our universe. According to them, modern man is not dependent anymore on any divine scripture. Darwinian scientists claim that universe has come into existence accidently without the interference of any divine power. Atheist writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Deniel C. Dennett argue that atheism has got scientific basis with the evolutionary theory. Muslim scholars have differences in their views, some reject it completely and some partially accept it as working scientific model. However, they unanimously refute the atheistic part of theory that shows the non-existence of God and purposeless universe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As Alister McGrath has argued across a lifetime of work, we need to approach the binaries that have been handed down to us—personal/academic, emotional/intellectual, secular/religious—with a healthy skepticism toward the integrity of their boundaries, attending instead to the contact zones between them. This article connects McGrath's body of work to what I call "cogency theory," an approach that rejects the thinking/feeling binary itself. It begins with a survey of how McGrath understands rationality—not only as multiple, but as defined, in meaningful ways, by feeling. This is illustrated by reexamining McGrath's controversy with Richard Dawkins, analyzing their debate in terms of how the argument itself comes to feel. This new paradigm allows us to supersede petty antagonisms built into contemporary culture—like the presumed science–religion conflict—and refocus on overarching concerns like the climate crisis. The article concludes with a question about the extent to which beliefs and "worldviews" define how we—either as groups or individuals—can make or unmake ecological disaster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introduction gives a short biography of Alister McGrath, introduces the articles that are part of this special issue, and concludes with a few personal reflections on working with McGrath by the author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Religion is a fascinating topic despite it has some hurdles. Although the study of its constitution, objective and relevance has been understood with effort for different research fields, most of its meaningful contributions do not get more than refuse each other. This research, which presents the main proposals of the United States philosopher Daniel Dennett about religion as natural phenomenon in contrast with the proposal of distinguished religion philosopher, has as a propose to point the less inhospitable lands, in the center of the debate in which it can be possible, making an interdisciplinary proposal, a less conflictive comprehension about religion that can allow those limits that sometimes are imposed to it in a conclusive way for the scientific convictions, biologists postulates, or even for the metaphysics speculations of some theologist forms.

While the human capacity of storytelling constitutes an important meta-textual motif in several of McEwan's novels, Atonement (2001) is his prominent story about storytelling and its moral value. McEwan has at times suggested that narrative imagination can help us enter other people's lives and thus forms a pre-condition for any contemporary morality. The article reads Atonement as an attempt to put this belief in narrativity to the test. Moreover, it addresses the role played by non-literary narratives in the self-understanding of individuals and groups. When asking how deeply narrative we are according to McEwan, the present article suggests that the key distinction the novel Atonement enables us to draw is not the one between the "narrativist" and "anti-narrativist" approach, but between two complementary experiences of time whose interplay makes our life unstable and prone to failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Universitaire des Sciences Humaines et Sociales is the property of University of Kasdi Merbah Ouargla and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To have the right and possibility to criticize religions in public life is crucial for developing a healthy liberal democratic society. However, this criticism could take many different forms with respect to who offers the criticism, on what grounds it is based, its aim, what the target of the criticism is, and whom the critics try to convince. In this article, I develop a theoretical framework we can use to distinguish and assess different forms of criticism, focusing primarily on secular criticism of religion. Furthermore, I argue that in performing such a meta-study of criticism, it is vital that we reflect more carefully on how to develop plausible ethics of criticism. Finally, by comparing public criticism and academic criticism, I show that such ethics must be developed in a way that is sensitive to discourse.

Based on two presentations during a February 2020 South African academic visit at the University of Pretoria and the University of Johannesburg, in this contribution, the authors of this article engage with one of the bestselling recent volumes in philosophy, Martin Hägglund’s This Life: Why Mortality Makes Us Free (here, the 2020 edition; initial publication date, 2019). In this book, Hägglund propagates ideas akin to those promoted within secular humanism. Whilst on the one hand this article elaborates the shortcomings of Hägglund’s criticism of religion, on the other hand it also strives for an empathetic reading of his secular humanist philosophy. The authors place this conversation within the post-secular religio-cultural climate currently rising internationally, along with some further contextualising remarks. The most important part of this article is the last section (‘Pitting some theological voices…’) in which the authors engage Hägglund’s main arguments theologically, which elaborate on the finitude of human life all the whilst denying it a prospect of immortality. The debate in this section procceeds along the lines of religious thought of Emmanuel Falque, Ebenhard Jüngel and Dewi Zephania Phillips, with a view to reconcile the radical awareness of finitude and temporality of human life, characteristic for modern discourse(s), with the religious language practices sustaining belief in eternal life. Contribution: This article engages with how Martin Hägglund’s This Life: Why Mortality Makes Us Free does not fairly convey aspects of the sense of secularism, and can additionally on the senses of finitude and temporality be improved by insights from Emmanuel Falque, Ebenhard Jüngel and Dewi Zephania Phillips.

Various contemporary phenomena of social regression and authoritarianism are related to religious actors, movements, and beliefs. This text, however, seeks to follow this up with the political–theoretical argumentation that New Atheism has to be understood as a way of thinking which carries illiberal and authoritarian tendencies with it as well. In defence of this position, this article will first reconstruct, with reference to Habermas’s and Rawls’s theory of democracy, elements that must include personal beliefs in order to be considered congruent with democratic values. Subsequently, New Atheism’s conception of rational politics will be presented in order to show in which aspects it contradicts the demands of reasonable convictions. This concerns, in particular, the rejection of reasonable pluralism on the one hand and a non-positivistic view of human beings on the other. As a conclusion, this text supports the proposition that, when speaking of the connection between certain worldviews and today’s illiberalism, New Atheism must also be considered as an unreasonable comprehensive doctrine.

This essay proposes that action unaccompanied by the usual feeling of conscious agency constitutes a “mark of ultimacy.” Characteristically religious statements of “agentless action” find support in social psychological and cognitive scientific research that calls into question the intuitive belief that conscious thought causes action. An awareness of the limits of our powers of will lies at the the core of those limit experiences that provide the context for the meaningfulness of religious language.

Copyright of IUG Journal of Islamic Studies is the property of Islamic University of Gaza and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Atheists deny the existence of God and strongly oppose all religious faiths especially Islam after 9/11. They use scientific, philosophical, historical and moral arguments mainly to prove the non-existence of God. They portray religion as illogical and irrational. Moreover, they argue that religions provide poor guidance on moralities. New atheists suggest that science should replace the religion in order to define what is moral or immoral. On contrary, Muslim scholars defend and argue that religion is main factor behind good moral values. The study focus on the moral dimension of new atheists’ argumentation and the Muslim scholarly response. For this purpose, arguments of four founding fathers of new atheists and four renowned Muslim scholars are comparatively analyzed. New atheists attempt to develop science based moralities and eliminate the role of religion from all important areas of life. Muslim scholars illustrate that position of atheism is illogical and irrational. Moralities are impossible without God and these are outside of scientific domain. Objective moralities need a final authority to decide what is right and what is wrong, atheism lacks this authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on two presentations during a February 2020 South African academic visit at the University of Pretoria and the University of Johannesburg, in this contribution, the authors of this article engage with one of the bestselling recent volumes in philosophy, Martin Hägglund's This Life: Why Mortality Makes Us Free (here, the 2020 edition; initial publication date, 2019). In this book, Hägglund propagates ideas akin to those promoted within secular humanism. Whilst on the one hand this article elaborates the shortcomings of Hägglund's criticism of religion, on the other hand it also strives for an empathetic reading of his secular humanist philosophy. The authors place this conversation within the post-secular religio-cultural climate currently rising internationally, along with some further contextualising remarks. The most important part of this article is the last section ('Pitting some theological voices...') in which the authors engage Hägglund's main arguments theologically, which elaborate on the finitude of human life all the whilst denying it a prospect of immortality. The debate in this section procceeds along the lines of religious thought of Emmanuel Falque, Ebenhard Jüngel and Dewi Zephania Phillips, with a view to reconcile the radical awareness of finitude and temporality of human life, characteristic for modern discourse(s), with the religious language practices sustaining belief in eternal life. Contribution: This article engages with how Martin Hägglund's This Life: Why Mortality Makes Us Free does not fairly convey aspects of the sense of secularism, and can additionally on the senses of finitude and temporality be improved by insights from Emmanuel Falque, Ebenhard Jüngel and Dewi Zephania Phillips. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]