Modern day atheists, our so-called “new atheists“, tend to be rather dismissive when not outright disparaging of religion - that distinctly human cultural phenomenon that seems to have become a constant source of irritation for liberals and intellectuals alike. However, arguing that secular humanism, or rather their alternative “moral framework”, is a God-free product of Western philosophy and that religion has no place in the intellectual endeavors of the enlightened modern man may be highly misleading and a gross over-simplification of the historical interconnection between philosophy, religion, morality, ethics and science. Nowhere is this more apparent than the science versus ethics debates regarding the issue of “human embryo experimentation” where human and animal genes are mixed to create hybrid species more commonly referred to as chimeras.

Angela Ballantyne writes in Humans and Hybrids: A Critique of the Western Moral Framework :

“The dualism between man and beast is central to the Western philosophical tradition and to the Judeo-Christian perspective. While other traditions such as Buddhism and Taoism emphasize a more integrated view of humanity and the animal kingdom - stressing interdependence, connection and harmony - the Western tradition has relied on the moral dichotomy between humans and animals.”

A comparison between the regulations governing human embryo experimentation and those governing animal experimentation will illustrate the persistence of the dualistic assumption that there is a clear distinction in the moral status of humans and animals. I will argue, firstly, that disallowing the use of human embryos for scientific experimentation has lead to the creation of human-animal hybrids. Second, I will contend that hybrids pose a significant challenge to the dualistic premise and that the inability of ethical frameworks that embody the dualistic premise to adequately respond to hybrids is a reason for rejecting the dualistic assumption in favor of a liberal interests account that accords moral value on non-arbitrary grounds.”

One has to wonder then if it is in fact possible to divorce ethics, morality and religion when even the most basic tenents of secular humanism or the atheist “moral framework” is deeply rooted in a “Judeo-Christian perspective”. And while attacking religion as an outdated and harmful vice that should be eradicated, are the new atheists not being dishonest and in fact advocating a new form of religion purged of the “irrational” concept of God where man has displaced God as the measure of all things ?