Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus would have cringed at "the new atheism" because they would see it as dropping God like Santa Claus, and going on with the same old values. The new atheists don't want to think out the implications of a complete absence of deity. Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, all expressed it quite correctly. The implications should be nihilism. [...] I don't have any objection to the idea that atheists can be good and morally upright people. But we need a worldview that is capable of justifying the confidence that we place in our minds, in truth, in goodness, in beauty. I argue that an atheistic worldview is not capable of justifying that confidence.Unfortunately, he ducks the follow-up question about Camus, who I always thought had the best response to this argument. He also talks about Einstein's discomfort with a "personal god":
Einstein was a man who thought the laws of physics have to be completely inviolable. [...] So the idea of a responsive God -- a God who answers prayers -- would have to violate the laws of physics, the laws of nature. This is why Einstein said the problem of science and religion is caused by the belief in a personal God. But it's not inevitable that a responsive God violates the laws of physics and chemistry. I don't think God does violate those laws.I confess, I didn't think he elaborated convincingly on how that would work. Still, its a very interesting chat with someone who has thought a lot about how science and religion might play well together. Of course, if that is still to much religion for you, check out the top 50 atheist bumper stickers (#42 is my favorite). H/t to boppyjean for the article.