Over recent months, atheism has become big news, and has also demonstrated its tremendous market potential. Books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have proved very popular; Dawkins and Harris, at least, have proved to be bestsellers; and I have lost count of the number of times I have seen people sitting on the train or on a bench reading one of their works. And this readable atheism is no preserve of the non-fiction section of Waterstone’s or Borders. With Phillip Pullman’s popular fantasy novels, such as The Amber Spyglass, atheism has found its very own CS Lewis: a gifted writer of exciting adventure stories which might well be described as epics of anti-Narnianism.

Atheism is, of course, nothing new. Nor is the use of compelling and exciting prose to communicate such. Throughout the centuries, some of the greatest masters of prose style have also been those committed to striking at the very foundations of orthodox Christian belief. Whether we think of the great literary genius of John Milton or the firebrand pamphlets of the amazing Tom Paine, Christianity has often been thumped by master wordsmiths. There is, however, an interesting shift taking place in the kinds of arguments which the new, trendy atheists are making.

Old-style agnosticism and atheism, as variously exemplified by the works of David Hume or AJ Ayer or even a Bertrand Russell, tended to focus on the alleged impossibility of certainty about God or, as in the case of Ayer and Russell, the impossibility of speaking about God in any meaningful way. In other words, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, was regarded as making farreaching claims which simply could not be justified in terms of what can and cannot be known, and what can and cannot be said.

Now, there is certainly this element in the work of Dawkins and Hitchens. Both men regard religion as empirically unjustified. In other words, one cannot work from the way the world actually is to the notion of some all-powerful, intelligent creator. But the fascinating thing is the force and power with which they make their cases against religion. Why spend so much time proving the non-existence of something? Why not do something more constructive with life? I don’t believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy, but I really do not have the time or the energy to write long books articulating my position and ridiculing those who hold such beliefs. Something else is driving the new atheism.

I believe that what drives this new atheism is the same thing which I also regard as driving the various philosophies collectively known as postmodernism, and also that which drives so much of modern Western culture: taste. This new atheism dislikes religion because it sees it as distasteful. It was the German philosopher, Nietzsche, who launched an attack on Christianity not from the perspective of the limits of human knowledge but from the perspective of taste. He regarded Christianity as false not because it embodied a set of incoherent and unverifiable beliefs, but because it advocated a morality, a ‘slave morality’ as he called it, which exalted everything that turned his stomach: forgiveness, meekness, mercy, obedience, longsuffering. It was all just too distasteful to him.

These new atheists are the heirs of Nietzsche. Ironically, it is not some alleged effeminacy in religion that makes them nauseous. In fact, it is the exact opposite: their atheist crusade is driven by fear of the violence and oppression which they see as an essential part of religious fundamentalism. Lumping together suicide bombers in the Gaza strip with loony right-wing televangelists in America, they see religious devotion – indeed, religion as a whole – as leading to results which are profoundly distasteful. This explains their passion: they are not interested merely in the intellectual problem of religious belief; they see themselves as engaged in a struggle over the nature of exactly what a civilised – and tastefully organised – society should look like.

How should we respond to these sons and daughters of Nietzsche, these arbiters of taste?

• Firstly, we need to realize that the battle is not simply, or even primarily, an intellectual one. It is a moral one. The long war against God is really one against his sovereignty over us and our accountability to Him. Arguments only get us so far. When Dawkins and Hitchens argue against religion, they are really saying that they find God’s claims on their lives to be distasteful.

• Secondly, we should be careful not to give further fuel to the opposition through intemperate reactions but, by loving our neighbours and walking humbly before the Lord, put the lie to the claims they are making. It is interesting that the new atheist’s knowledge of Christianity seems limited only to famous Christians, high-profile scandals and the odd bit of the lunatic fringe. They never mention the small churches working to spread the Gospel in the toughest parts of the cities, or the countless individual acts of love that anonymous Christians do every day as part of their daily walk. While the atheists and their arguments will always be with us, we should do our best not to provide them with further material for future books.

• Thirdly, we should pray for their conversion. Something is going on in the hearts of men so obsessed with a God in whom they claim not to believe. Are they simply out to make money by writing a bestseller? There are easier ways for such talented men to do that. So why the obsession with God? Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness is hard work. Pray that sooner or later they come to acknowledge what, deep down inside, they have known all along.