The Accelerating Pace of Atheism: A Misconception
By Patel Abdul Rahman Misbahi, Tr. New Age Islam
Translated from Urdu to English by Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi
Abstract
This article critically examines the widespread claim that atheism is rapidly expanding due to its alleged rational superiority and its capacity to replace religion in modern human life, arguing instead that the supposed accelerating pace of atheism is largely a misconception sustained by media amplification, ideological propaganda, and deliberate “mind programming” rather than genuine intellectual persuasion. Drawing upon evaluations by prominent secular and atheist thinkers themselves, such as David Sloan Wilson, James Wood, Thomas Wells, Tim Dean, Phil Zuckerman, and John Gray, the article demonstrates that modern atheism, particularly the “New Atheism” movement of the early twenty-first century, has quickly exposed profound intellectual, philosophical, and existential weaknesses. It shows that atheism fails on three central claims: it lacks a coherent rational foundation, it does not offer a viable alternative to religion, and it is incapable of providing lasting psychological or existential fulfilment. The article further reveals that the perceived numerical growth of atheism is often the result of a strategic redefinition of atheism itself, from explicit denial of God to a vague “lack of belief”, thereby inflating statistics while concealing substantive failure. Finally, while acknowledging the presence of atheistic tendencies, including within Muslim societies, the article contends that their spread is not driven by atheism’s intellectual strength but by internal weaknesses within religious communities, such as ignorance of authentic teachings, cultural alienation, moral disintegration, and flawed religious representation, concluding that fears of atheism’s unstoppable rise are exaggerated and that the challenge it poses can be effectively addressed through intellectual renewal, sound religious education, and moral responsibility.
By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam
…
The Accelerating Pace of Atheism: A Misconception
One claim that is repeatedly asserted by atheists, through writings and speeches across electronic media, print media, and social and digital platforms, is that modern humanity, having become conscious of its creative powers and empowered by the inventions of the contemporary age, no longer feels the need to acknowledge the existence of God Almighty. According to this narrative, human beings have come to rely upon themselves and place confidence in their own abilities, rendering belief in God redundant. As a result, the walls erected in the name of religion, the walls that once bound human beings to specific beliefs, practices, and moral frameworks, are said to be steadily crumbling.
It is further argued that as humanity continues to progress, it increasingly becomes convinced of the rationality of atheism, or at least influenced by what are presented as its rational justifications, and thus gradually abandons religion. This assertion is reiterated time and again: that atheism, by virtue of being inherently rational, a superior alternative to religion, and a source of intellectual and existential satisfaction for human beings, is continually expanding its sphere of influence. Consequently, it is claimed that ever-growing numbers of people are inclining toward atheism and embracing it.
The most important question here is this: to what extent is there truth in such claims made by atheists or their supporters? Has the alleged rationality of atheism truly cast its spell over vast segments of the world’s population, enticing them with a vision of freedom from religion? Or is this, rather, a form of delusion, systematically implanted in people’s minds through continuous media exposure, with the aim of overawing them, so that they fail to recognize the significance of religion in human life and, under the influence of a particular kind of propaganda, come to adopt atheism not so much as a reasoned worldview but as a fashionable trend?
An analysis of contemporary conditions suggests that, across different countries of the world, the growth of atheism owes more to deception and illusion than to genuine rational appeal. In fact, modern atheism as a movement is devoid of true rationality altogether; its entire structure rests on the stimulation of desires and the force of promotional propaganda. The core reality is that contemporary human beings are increasingly confined within the sphere of their private preoccupations and are thereby prevented from engaging with any form of substantive or authentic knowledge. In such circumstances, whatever is impressed upon them through organized publicity and media campaigns is readily accepted as truth. In technical terms, this process is known as mind programming.
Mind Programming and Ground Realities
When one sets aside such forms of mind programming and turns instead to empirical realities, the hollowness and superficiality of the lofty claims regarding the popularity of atheism on account of its alleged rational thought become clearly evident. What became of the so-called modern atheism movement, which emerged in 2001, within a mere five years is well illustrated by the following observation of David Sloan Wilson himself regarded as a prominent proponent of atheistic evolutionary thought.
On 6 November 2015, The New Republic published an article entitled “Is the New Atheism Dead?”, in which David Sloan Wilson wrote:
“The world appears to be tiring of the New Atheism movement, which burst upon the scene about five years ago.”
That is to say, it appears that the world has grown weary of the New Atheism movement, which emerged onto the global stage approximately five years earlier.
David Sloan Wilson’s complete statement reads as follows:
“The world appears to be tiring of the New Atheism movement, which burst upon the scene about five years ago with the so-called Four Horsemen: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens.”
Going even further, Wilson himself explicitly acknowledges that all the glitter and appeal of modern atheism, erected in the name of rationality, is nothing more than a self-delusion. Beyond a handful of assumptions, modern atheism possesses nothing that could genuinely be described as rational and then presented as an invitation for others to embrace it. Consequently, the claim that atheism is expanding because of its rational superiority is itself an illusion.
In the same article, Wilson writes:
“How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion, including a polarized belief system that represents everything as good, good, good or bad, bad, bad, the unquestioned authority of its leaders, and even the portrayal of bad ideas as like demons (parasitic memes) that need to be cast out (‘breaking the spell’).”
— David Sloan Wilson
In other words, what passes today as modern atheism is little more than a disguised imitation of religion itself: a distorted ideological framework in which everything is divided into absolute good on one side and absolute evil on the other. Its leaders remain beyond accountability, and its rhetoric often descends into simplistic demonization of opposing ideas, the tendencies that warrant intellectual rejection rather than reverence.
This, however, reflects only the initial failure of the modern atheism movement, which was launched with great fanfare at the dawn of the twenty-first century. To understand what became of it a further five years later, nearly a full decade on, one need only consider the assessment offered by James Wood. Despite the relentless enthusiasm of the media, which never tired of proclaiming the exponential growth of atheism, the project of promoting modern atheism, owing to its lack of rational grounding and its conflict with human nature, began to falter remarkably within a single decade, and the once-deafening rhetoric of rationality gradually faded.
In his essay “The Modern Novel and the New Atheism,” James Wood writes:
“Now that almost a decade has passed since the events of 9/11, and the New Atheism has had time to establish itself as more than simply reactive, some of its intellectual and theological weaknesses have become more clearly apparent.”
— James Wood
That is to say, now that nearly a decade has passed since the events of 9/11, and modern atheism has had sufficient time, normally enough for any worldview to stabilize itself, many of its intellectual and philosophical weaknesses have become unmistakably evident.
In other words, the modern atheistic project that was launched in the name of rationality as a challenge to religion became so thoroughly exposed within a single decade that the entire edifice of its claimed rationality collapsed. To the extent that even self-professed rationalists and secular intellectuals were compelled to concede that atheism is nothing more than an intellectual paradise for the naïve.
In this context, it is worth considering the observation of Thomas Wells, a lecturer at the Leiden Institute for Philosophy. In his essay “Why I Am Not an Atheist,” Wells writes:
“The fundamental problem with all this is that the New Atheists have failed to break the intellectual chains of religion and haven’t even realised it.”
— Thomas Wells
In other words, the most basic problem confronting modern atheism is that its proponents have failed to dismantle the rational foundations of religion, and, remarkably, they remain unaware of their own failure.
The illusion that atheists are successfully spreading their worldview on the basis of rationality has now been dispersed by the force of these arguments. The clouds of deception have lifted, and the rational coherence of religion once again stands clearly visible.
Let us now unravel another strand of this intellectual deception. Beyond their claim to rational superiority, atheists take particular pride in presenting atheism as an alternative—that is, as a viable substitute for religion. According to this view, the modern individual, having abandoned religion, can live a contented and meaningful life under the shadow of atheism.
The reality of atheism’s alleged rationality has already been laid bare above. It is now time to examine, with equal clarity, the shallowness of its claim to being a true alternative to religion.
The well-known Australian journalist Tim Dean, who has a background in science journalism, writes in his essay “God Is Dead—Now What?”:
“Abandoning religion, even with good cause, is not to be done lightly. So with what to replace it? Atheism? Unfortunately, atheism is fundamentally a negative thesis: it simply states that there is no God or gods. Atheism doesn’t make any positive claims about how to live one’s life, except to say that to do so under the impression there’s a God is to live in error.”
— God Is Dead—Now What? by Tim Dean
In other words, rejecting religion, even when justified by seemingly strong arguments, is not a trivial act, because it immediately raises the question of what can replace it. Is atheism a viable substitute? Unfortunately, atheism is inherently a negative worldview. It merely asserts the non-existence of God or any transcendent power. It offers no constructive moral or existential framework for how a person ought to live; it only insists that living with belief in God is a mistake—while remaining silent on how one should live correctly in the absence of that belief.
Tim Dean further writes:
“Even if the so-called ‘New Atheists’ are right, and all that’s left of God is a chalk outline, that’s far from the end of the story. Sadly, religion can’t simply be surgically extracted from our lives, our culture and our society that easily. God’s absence leaves a sizable void that needs to be filled by something. And atheism isn’t it.”
That is to say, even if one were to assume, purely for the sake of argument, that the claims of the so-called New Atheists are correct and that nothing remains of God but a symbolic outline, the matter does not end there. Religion cannot simply be pushed out of human life, culture, and society as though it were a removable organ. The denial of God’s existence creates a profound existential vacuum, one that demands to be filled. And the stark truth, according to Dean, is that atheism lacks the capacity to fill that void.
The assertion that “atheism is a rational worldview and a genuine alternative to religion, and therefore its popularity is steadily increasing” has now been sufficiently examined from both angles—its claim to rationality and its claim to being an alternative. Once these illusions are stripped away, it becomes clear how much of this narrative rests on exaggeration and self-deception.
Yet, even after this exposure, some atheists continue to indulge in the comforting illusion that atheism has provided humanity with a peaceful and fulfilling way of life—one in which people are liberated from mental anxiety and emotional unrest. According to this view, modern humanity is supposedly gravitating toward atheism in search of inner tranquillity.
It must be understood that this, too, is nothing more than a delusion, bearing little to no relation to reality. Nevertheless, for the sake of the atheist’s own psychological comfort, let us lift the veil from this illusion as well—and attempt to examine yet another disfiguring mark on the face of atheism.
The sociologist Phil Zuckerman, affiliated with research on social issues at Cambridge, writes in one of his survey reports:
“In a global study on atheism, sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted that though there are positive correlations with societal health in many countries where the atheist population is significantly high, countries with higher numbers of atheists also had the highest suicide rates compared to countries with lower numbers of atheists.”
— Zuckerman, Phil (2007), in Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, p. 58
In other words, Zuckerman’s global analysis makes it clear that although many countries with a relatively high proportion of atheists may exhibit elevated standards of social welfare and material well-being, these same countries also show significantly higher suicide rates when compared with societies where atheism is less prevalent.
The conclusion thus becomes unmistakable: just as atheism lacks genuine rational grounding and fails to function as a viable alternative to religion, so too does it fail to provide mental, emotional, or existential fulfilment. The foregoing discussion establishes that atheism is neither expanding on the basis of rational superiority, nor gaining acceptance as a meaningful substitute for religion, nor offering any reliable framework for human contentment. Once these three claims collapse, it becomes evident that the fear surrounding the “rapid spread of atheism,” manufactured through mind programming and media narratives, is nothing more than deception, illusion, and baseless alarmism.
Let us now examine another dimension of this discourse. Atheists often claim not only that religion has been defeated or rendered obsolete, but that human society can function with balance and moral stability even in the absence of religion. Going further still, some proclaim that humanity has bid farewell to religion altogether—that by embracing atheism, people have declared the “death of God,” resolved to construct their own utopia, and formally rejected any need for the divine. According to this narrative, atheism is triumphing in the struggle between religion and irreligion, while religion steadily retreats.
Superficially, such proclamations may distress religious believers and delight atheists. Yet the true strength of these claims—and their plausibility in real-world conditions—becomes clear when one considers the words of the renowned agnostic thinker John Gray. In an article published by The Guardian on 3 March 2015, entitled “What Scares the New Atheists?”, Gray writes:
“There is no sign anywhere of religion fading away, but by no means all atheists have thought the disappearance of religion possible or desirable.”
— John Gray, The Guardian, Tue 3 Mar 2015, 06:00 GMT
That is, there is no credible indication that religion is losing its relevance or approaching extinction, despite the widespread assumption among many atheists that such an outcome is either inevitable or desirable.
Tim Dean expresses this reality even more explicitly. He writes:
“Religion is more than just a vehicle of worship. Religion is one of the pillars of our society. Religion is a glue that binds a community together. It’s a support network that lifts you when you’re down. It’s a centre of education, a hub of culture, a place where we’re encouraged to consider things greater than our own petty concerns.”
— God Is Dead—Now What?
In essence, religion is not merely a system of ritual devotion. It constitutes a foundational pillar of society, a binding force that strengthens communal bonds. It serves as a network of support during moments of human vulnerability, a centre for education, a cradle of culture, and a space that encourages individuals to rise above narrow self-interest and engage with higher moral and existential questions.
The Numbers Game and Ground Reality
After all these considerations, we arrive at the stage of the so-called “numbers game”, through which the graph of atheism is consistently portrayed as rising. If atheism is irrational, incapable of serving as an alternative to religion, and devoid of existential fulfilment, then an obvious question arises: why do global reports and various surveys continue to show a steady increase in the number of atheists worldwide? This question is certainly important, but it is not particularly difficult to answer.
When atheism found itself defeated on all three fronts—rational coherence, existential substitution, and inner satisfaction—it ultimately resorted to a specific strategy to win the numbers game. That strategy was to change the very definition of atheism itself in order to conceal its failure.
The details are as follows: when atheists realized that the traditional definition of atheism—namely, the outright denial of God—was adopted as the standard, only a very small number of people would actually fall into this category. Very few individuals would be willing to accept such an invitation and openly declare their abandonment of religion. Under these circumstances, it would be extremely difficult to convince the world that atheism, being allegedly grounded in reason, is steadily expanding and that every rational person ought therefore to abandon religion and embrace atheism.
To escape this dilemma, the definition of atheism was deliberately altered. Initially, atheism was defined as “believing that there is no God.” Later, this definition was revised to “lack of belief” in God. In other words, atheistic propaganda, which began with the outright denial of God, retreated—due to its failure—to a far weaker position: mere doubt within religious belief.
Previously, atheism meant denying God altogether; now, even entertaining a minor doubt regarding any religious matter is classified as atheism. Put differently, what was once defined as absolute disbelief in God has now been reduced to nothing more than weakness of conviction.
This definitional shift produced a dual advantage. On the one hand, it made it easier to present large numerical figures under the banner of atheism, thereby intimidating or impressing the general public. On the other hand, it helped conceal the reality that atheism, despite all its efforts, has largely failed to influence ordinary people.
Commenting on this situation, Frank Turek writes:
“If lacking a belief in God is the definition of ‘atheism’ and not ‘there is no God,’ then ‘atheism’ is true even if God really exists. How is that reasonable? If not ‘atheism,’ what word should we use for the belief that there is no God?”
— Frank Turek, Stealing from God
In other words, if atheism is defined merely as a lack of belief in God rather than a denial of God’s existence, then atheism would technically remain valid even if God actually exists—a conclusion that is plainly absurd. And if simple doubt is labelled atheism, then what term, one must ask, is left to describe the explicit rejection of God altogether?
Is This Not a Reality?
At this point, a doubt may arise in the reader’s mind: over the past two decades, the number of people experiencing religious doubt has undeniably increased. In recent years, there has also been a noticeable rise in individuals who openly declare themselves atheists. Even within Muslim societies, figures ranging from Tariq Fatah to Javed Akhtar and Ibn Warraq—from the Indian subcontinent to the Arab world—have emerged who do not hesitate to publicly announce their disassociation from religion. In light of this, to deny outright the growing influence of atheism would amount to turning a blind eye to reality.
Is it not true that, compared to the past, atheism today appears to have planted its feet more firmly even within our own societies? Is it not a fact that a significant portion of the younger Muslim generation is—perhaps unknowingly, yet undeniably—intellectually inclined toward atheism?
In response, we would submit that we do not deny the spread of atheism, nor do we claim that the Muslim world is immune to its influence. What we have sought to demonstrate in the preceding discussion is that the dramatic pace of expansion which atheists claim in order to exaggerate their own significance bears little resemblance to ground realities. As for the claim that the number of atheistically inclined individuals is higher today than in previous generations, this is indeed true—and it has its own causes. However, these causes have nothing to do with atheism being rational, a viable alternative, or a source of existential fulfilment.
In reality, the spread of atheistic tendencies among certain segments of Muslim society is driven by multiple factors, most of which are internal rather than external. In other words, the damage inflicted upon our intellectual and theological foundations has been caused far less by the so-called “clever enemies” who openly promote atheism, and far more by the self-proclaimed but misguided “friends” who claim to represent Islam.
As for external factors, they are largely the same influences affecting the younger generations of all religious communities: films, television dramas, pornographic magazines, novels that inflame base desires, and the vast global media apparatus relentlessly pouring out morally corrosive content. This ideological pollution ranges from domestic-dispute–centred television serials to overtly explicit films.
With regard to the internal factors contributing to the rise of atheism within Muslim societies, these can be understood—at least in part—through the following list of causes.
i. Ignorance of the authentic teachings of Islam. In practice, the years meant for acquiring religious understanding (roughly from ages 6 to 20) are entirely consumed by modern secular education. In the name of religion, one merely learns to mechanically read the Arabic language. As a result, even upon reaching middle age, such a person remains as unaware of Islamic perspectives on life and the universe as they were at birth.
ii. Acquiring religious instruction during the pre-conscious years in an unfamiliar language through rote recitation, and then, upon reaching the age of intellectual awareness, turning to atheistic literature—read consciously in a familiar language—to learn how to live. An empty mind, unacquainted with Islam and surrounded by unchecked desires, is easily drawn toward atheism, which presents itself as an attractive pathway for the unrestricted fulfilment of such desires.
iii. Alienation from and aversion toward Islamic scholars. Even when unaware of Islam’s true teachings, the one remaining source of hope and emotional attachment to religion is contact with those who genuinely understand it. Unfortunately, the present generation’s connection with sincere, God-conscious scholars has become almost non-existent.
iv. Due to ignorance, mistaking a few ritual practices as the sum total or ultimate purpose of religion. For example, viewing acts of worship as isolated, extraordinary rituals detached from everyday life. Likewise, performing a few secondary, voluntary, or recommended acts and assuming that the duty of religion has been fulfilled—while comfortably and even proudly conducting all economic, social, political, and ethical affairs either as purely private matters or according to the prevailing global order.
v. Viewing religion as irrelevant to life as a comprehensive system, and instead merely attempting to appear Muslim—much like certain Jewish or Hindu identity practices—without internalizing Islam as a way of life applicable to every moment.
vi. Mistaking a selective set of issues presented under the guise of modernity as religion itself. This factor is particularly prevalent among the affluent classes of Muslims, who regard the mere labelling of their modern lifestyles and unrestrained desires as “Islamic” as success, even when the path suggested clearly contradicts the spirit and foundations of Islam.
vii. Upon gaining a limited understanding of modern scientific education, assuming materialism to be the ultimate explanation of reality and turning away from spirituality. Then, despite possessing only worldly education, offering baseless opinions about religion under the delusion of intellectual omniscience.
viii. The dominance of religiously ignorant clerics and spiritually disengaged Sufis over Muslim society. Consequently, their followers remain deprived of Islam’s authentic teachings and surrender their intellectual framework to ignorance. This explains why a handful of reckless youths or unemployed activists sitting on YouTube are increasingly gaining popularity as “religious leaders.”
ix. Neglecting the social responsibilities mandated by Islam and, when the consequences of this neglect become apparent, blaming one’s religion or its sincere scholarly representatives in order to conceal personal failure.
x. The absence of proper Islamic upbringing for children. Parents themselves remain heedless and ignorant of religion, show no concern for their children’s religious development, and instead hand them over to television or mobile devices while becoming absorbed in their own private lives.
xi. Being unaware of the Islamic concepts of rights owed to God (ḥuqūq Allāh) and rights owed to human beings (ḥuqūq al-ʿibād), and instead chanting slogans of generic humanitarianism or humanism. In other words, committing all wrongdoing as “Muslims” while attributing all good deeds to “humanity”—charging evil to Islam’s account and crediting virtue to humanism.
Keeping this brief list of causes in mind, practical steps can be taken to shut the backdoor through which atheism enters. If every segment of the Muslim community fulfils its respective responsibility, the challenge of atheism can not only be confronted but effectively overcome.
…
URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/accelerating-pace-atheism-misconception/d/138339
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism