In the same boat
John Haught has written a new book: God and the New Atheists. The need for good literature which responds to such folks is welcomed but unfortunately this book seems to suffer in it's central thesis.
"Has Harris thought about what would happen if people adopted the atheist's belief that there is no transcendent basis for our moral valuations?" Haught lauds Nietzsche and others who were aware of the collapse of a certain moral order with the death of God.
Are new atheists aware of this Haught asks? But implicit is the idea that theism gives you a ready made divinely blessed moral order and that atheism takes this away. Nietzsche is brave for recognizing this, the new atheists seem oblivious, for Haught, to this consequence.
The problem is that Nietzsche is not describing what happens when one becomes an atheist. He's describing what has transpired in western society on the whole. In that no one escapes this fact, neither atheists nor theists. Kierkegard is a theist who identifies the issue.
Haught seems to think theism side steps the dilemma. Maybe theism could, at least somewhat, embrace it. If our moral and religious claims can be relativized this provides an opportunity for God to judge our claims, moral or otherwise, calling them to account.
The use of religion to divinely bless our current notions is so deeply ingrained that the idea that religion could do anything else does not occurr to a number of new atheists and theists. Maybe it's time that religion challenged us and our ideals, not bless them.
In this, theism is not a way one should choose to escape a certain set of problems or set us apart from others. It's rather a way of bringing the resources of our respective religious traditions to bear on the problems of life in concert with others.