Comment (62)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiAtheism becomes fashionable
Passionate tracts by the new missionaries of unbelief are selling like hotcakes. But are they rational?
Over the past half century, the dominant view among the chattering classes has been either that there is no God (atheism) or that one should go about one’s life as if the question of God’s existence cannot be answered (agnosticism) and thus is of no concern. Most of those who share the atheistic view also think that its propagation is best achieved by treating it as an accepted and comfortable fact of life, in keeping with Freud’s famous dictum that "the more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more widespread is the decline of religious belief".
However, it seems that this low key approach has turned out to be less convincing for millions of people who just as comfortably accept advances in science and technology alongside a growing interest for religious faith. So a new strategy based on open proselytising in favour of atheism is now gradually taking shape. That at least is the impression given by the publication in recent months of a spate of books by reputed atheists -- among them Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel C. Dennett, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, God is not Great, by Christopher Hitchens and The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist, by Victor Stenger. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, these authors have collectively sold about one million books over the past 12 months.
The irony of this new desire to further the spread of atheism is that, unlike the cool and laid-back atheists of an earlier age, these new atheists write like true believers... This impatient zeal surely stems from the fact that, for them, history has not unfolded exactly as intended.
The intent of these authors is to accelerate the elimination of all remnants of the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Sam Harris puts it, the name of the game is "to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity." As for Hitchens, he seeks to show "how religion poisons everything".
The irony of this new desire to further the spread of atheism is that, unlike the cool and laid-back atheists of an earlier age, these new atheists write like true believers. There is, in fact, a missionary and, at times, severe, tone to their writings. Indeed, reading them produces the feeling of being lectured, hectored, and scolded by atheist fundamentalists. This impatient zeal surely stems from the fact that, for them, history has not unfolded exactly as intended.
Accordingly, Sam Harris ends his Letter to a Christian Nation with something that smacks of a personal confession: "This letter is the product of failure – the failure of the many brilliant attacks upon religion that preceded it, the failure of our schools to announce the death of God in a way that each generation can understand, the failure of the media to criticise the abject religious certainties of our public figures – failures great and small that have kept almost every society on this earth muddling over God and despising those who muddle differently".
From people who claim to be driven solely by reason and to have liberated themselves from ignorance and "blind faith", one would normally expect at least some attempt to understand the deeper human reasons for refusing to bury God, as demanded. But such an attempt has yet to be undertaken.
For Christians who take their faith seriously, there is both a downside and an upside to this new wave of atheistic proselytising, with the latter probably outweighing the former. The downside is that it will reinforce already widespread liberal prejudices according to which there is no point in trying to know God. Instead of encouraging people to maintain an open mind about religion (the least to be expected from true liberals), these books will further encourage a closing of the mind to any possibility of the supernatural, which they gratuitously equate with superstition.
The upside is that these books help draw more clearly than ever before the battle lines in the ongoing culture wars. Until recently, most Christians were inclined to assume that modern culture was at least neutral with respect to the basic tenets of Christianity, and that it was possible to adhere to the creed while at the same time accepting the philosophical heritage of the "modern" age. In short, it was more or less taken for granted that one could view oneself as being both a child of God and a child of the Enlightenment.
Thanks in part to these books and others of the same ilk, it is now becoming increasingly clear that Nietzsche was right: the only true alternative to Christianity is nihilism and atheism. Nietzsche inferred from this that morality can only be based on the human will. Anyone familiar with European history of the 20th century will know the disastrous outcome of that alternative. It is in this sense that the new atheists help us to understand why the 150-year old attempt by "progressive" Christians to find some accommodation between the Christian creed and the basic tenets of the Enlightenment have led to a gradual erosion of the faith. This perhaps explains why, at the outset of the 21st century, many Christians are coming to realise that the only meaningful choice is between traditional Christianity and atheism. As the intellectual dust and confusion caused by the collapse of the numerous variations of liberal Protestantism and "progressive" Catholicism settles, we find there is no way around this choice.
All this does not mean, however, that Christians and atheists are soon to find themselves locked into some kind of unrelenting battle. Whether the more zealous atheists who have adopted the missionary posture of these books like it or not, there are other atheists who do not subscribe to their views and who even seek a dialogue with Christianity. Jürgen Habermas, considered by many as a most "methodical atheist" and an icon of postmodernism, wrote in a 2004 essay titled A time of transition that "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilisation. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter." A similar view is held by atheist Marcello Pera, professor of philosophy and President of the Italian Senate in a book published jointly with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) and titled Without Roots.
It is also worth noting that the new atheists, as mentioned, fail to provide any solid argument in support of the non-existence of God. This is not because of some lack of intellectual sophistication on their part, but rather because, as most philosophers will readily admit, non-existence is something that can never be proven. Christopher Hitchens, generally considered the most knowledgeable and entertaining of the five authors mentioned, argues that God does not exist because "all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule".
In making this claim, Hitchens makes two mistakes. First, he fails to account for the fact that a large proportion of scientists (as many as 50 per cent according to the late Stephen Jay Gould, a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory) do believe in God. Second, and more importantly, he is totally oblivious to the fact that, in the order of natural (ie, non-revealed) knowledge, the idea that God exists can only make sense as a philosophical answer to a metaphysical question. Throughout history, the concept of God has always appeared as one having to do with the why of a certain existence. And the question as to why something exists is not a scientific one because whatever its answer might be, it does not lend itself to empirical verification, ie, it is not falsifiable through experimentation. Anyone wondering whether God exists is well aware that he is not raising a scientific question because all scientific enquiries are geared to what a given thing actually is, rather than to why it exists. In short, religion has nothing to do with what things are – that is the realm of natural science -, but rather with why they happen to be at all.
But there is an even deeper flaw in the thinking of the new atheists. All assume that in the debate on God, the basic distinction is that between believers and unbelievers. Yet, as Blaise Pascal, a 17th Century mathematician, scientist and inventor of the first working computer, notes in his Pensées, the true absolute distinction is between "seeking" and "unseeking" unbelievers, between unhappy atheists who seek and eventually become believers, and happy atheists who simply don’t care. Pascal reminds us that God judges atheists, not by the supernatural standard of faith, but rather by the natural standard of reason.
Anyone reading Pascal’s Pensées cannot help but find them eminently reasonable. What they tell us is that we are hard-wired to seek happiness, perfection and certainty. It is impossible for us not to seek these things. And yet we fail miserably at getting even near them. Each of us is a living self-contradiction. The consequence, Pascal says, is that "one needs no great sublimity of soul to realise that in this life there is no true and solid satisfaction… that our afflictions are infinite, and finally that death… must… infallibly face us with the inescapable and appalling alternative of being annihilated or wretched throughout eternity". This means that we would be foolish not to reflect on whether there is an afterlife. "The immortality of the soul is something of such vital importance to us…that one must have lost all feeling not to care about knowing the facts of the matter". Because it is our "chief interest" to seek the truth on this matter, we must make "an absolute distinction between those who strive with all their might to learn and those who live without troubling themselves or thinking about it".
Here Pascal is still arguing on the basis, not of some revealed truth, but of natural reason. He says that the negligence shown by the happy unseeking atheists about their ultimate destiny "seems quite monstrous to me. I do not say this prompted by the pious zeal of spiritual devotion. I mean on the contrary that we ought to have this feeling from principles of human interest and self-esteem. For that we need only see what the least enlightened see" (n. 427).This means that the choice between belief and unbelief is a matter, not primarily of the head, but of the heart.
If one accepts Pascal’s basic premise –- the absolute certainty that we will die some day – then there is no way we can refute his logic. And that logic dictates that the proselytising of the new happy atheists is not only intellectually flawed, but so downright irrational we may well wonder who, 50 years from now, will enjoy the greatest readership: Pascal or Hitchens? The answer seems obvious.
Richard Bastien is a Canadian freelance writer.
To David Fairthorne,
But aren’t many atheists clearly (and dogmatically) stating that the society would be better off without religious beliefs? This is the main theme of Hitchens’ and Harris’ books, isn’t it?
Mariusz Wesolowski said: “Isn’t atheism trying to realize a perfect society?”
No! In my opinion, atheism simply means a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Atheism has nothing to say about what kind of society we live in, except that we are freed from the need to do the will of God. So we don’t have to worry about committing “sins” (unless they are anti-social or illegal); and our lives are not dictated by what might become of us after we die!
David Page said,
“Being certain that God doesn’t exist is as dogmatic as being certain that he does. I know something is going on but I don’t know what it is.”
This certainly is a good beginning of a reasonable discussion.
Mariusz Wesolowski said: “Isn’t atheism trying to realize a perfect society?”
I don’t know. I don’t think I’ve ever met an Atheist. Even Christopoher Hitchins fudged that question when asked directly. Being certain that God doesn’t exist is as dogmatic as being certain that he does. I know something is going on but I don’t know what it is.
We all want a better world. How we do that is what’s important. If people don’t adapt to the system you use then you have to change the system, good luck trying to change the people. The Communists were devoted to Lamarkism (The inheritance of acquired characteristics). They twisted it to mean that mental states could be passed on genetically. If we lived in communes we would adapt to communal living and pass that adaptation on to our children and grandchildren. Of course it wasn’t going to work, so the system became more and more repressive. Utopianism always leads to tyranny.
David Page said,
“All these systems try to bend people to fit their idea of the perfect society. The result is always tyranny. “
Exactly. Isn’t atheism trying to realize a perfect society?
Mariusz Wesolowski said: “We are rather familar with such “critical masses of people” in the past - for example, the Mongols, the Nazis or the communists - whose killing record vastly exceeded anything ever done in this respect in the name of religion.”
Nazism and Communism are Utopian systems. Religion, untempered by secular society, is also Utopian. All these systems try to bend people to fit their idea of the perfect society. The result is always tyranny.
Drew said,
“...a critical mass of people are now publicly acknowledging their non-religiosity, and are no longer cowed into silence.”
We are rather familar with such “critical masses of people” in the past - for example, the Mongols, the Nazis or the communists - whose killing record vastly exceeded anything ever done in this respect in the name of religion.
No, history has not unfolded as it should - many who should know better still wallow in religious ignorance. But when we look at statistics in Europe, we can see that within fifty years many nations where religious conformity was previously successfully inflicted on all have now thrown off that yoke. This article is a combination of half-truths, half-lies, and an inability to honestly understand why people are rejecting religion. Atheism is not “fashionable”, it is growing. North America lags behind, but in Quebec, British Columbia, the West and North-East of the US, a critical mass of people are now publicly acknowledging their non-religiosity, and are no longer cowed into silence. Calling people who ask for proof to substantiate supernaturalist claims “fundamentalist” and “radical” is a debating trick meant to deprive these words of meaning. None of the atheist writers above is either of these two things - their exasperation with religion, like mine, stems from watching the evening television news every night and wondering why “faith” is not held to task for all the wrongs that are perpetuated in its name.
John Davidson,
I haven’t read Robert Broom, but if he thinks there is a “Plan”, which I suppose would mean some kind of divine purpose, I don’t think there is one. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which is generally accepted by scientists, says that evolution happens by random mutations (although that may result in some appearance of design).
However I do think that you are absolutely right about the probable future of mankind. Malthus’s “Principle of Population” said that population, if unchecked, increases at a geometric rate (i.e. 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.), whereas the food supply grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). I don’t know what will run out first; food or energy, or perhaps even fresh air or water, but the earth has insufficient resources for its increasing population. Not many people (even environmentalists) are prepared to admit that this is the root of our environmental problems.
David Fairthorne said:
“I think you should make a clear distinction between the natural (observable) world and the “supernatural”; nobody has ever seen the supernatural.”
The first part of this sentence is absolutely correct and the main error of atheists lies in not making this distinction, while the second part is demonstrably false. Many people have perceived the supernatural. They are usually known as seers, visionaries, or mystics. Atheists, with their typical mental myopia, call them insane.
Rivka,
I think you should make a clear distinction between the natural (observable) world and the “supernatural”; nobody has ever seen the supernatural. Millions of people seem to think that the supernatural exists, but there is no real evidence. My own view is that by definition supernatural means something that cannot be observed. In the absence of tangible evidence, “faith” and “divine revelation” are invoked as “proof”.
I only care about the supernatural because some religious people want to compel others to believe in it. Some are so convinced that they will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. That is terribly dangerous because it leads to “holy wars”. Religious zeal was the cause of the Crusades, and it could even be the cause of the next world war.
I agree that mathematics can be beautiful, and it can also be used in scientific discovery. Many of the greatest advances in mathematics have been made by or used by theoretical physicists while seeking to discover the laws of nature. But beauty doesn’t always equate to truth. For many years, physicists have been looking for a theory that unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity, but string theory has so far failed to do that. Some say that string theorists, dazzled by the mathematical beauty of the theory, are barking up the wrong tree.
By the way, some scientists use the word “God” as shorthand for a hypothetical being that specified the laws of nature. There is no suggestion that such a God actually exists!
Thanks for your expressions of good will, and I wish you all the best.
David.
“Those who consider that all the strange course of evolution is the result of an accident, or a series of accidents, are quite at liberty to think so. I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gome on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to meet its goal.”
Robert Broom, Finding the Missing Link, page 101.
I now believe the Plan is finished with man the terminal mammalian species ever to appear on earth. From now forth it will continue to be down hill. We are destroying the earth with our numbers and our energy dependent technology. We will be lucky if civilization survives the present century. The only hope is for our numbers to be reduced by at least two orders of magnitude to around 70 million or roughly the number prior to the industrial revolution.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
John A. Davison
continued:
As for the emotional appeal of Jesus callously sending to hell all the poor people who died w/o any chance of knowing him, etc..... that’s just people’s personal theology. Christ never sat down and worked out a little scheme of the criteria to ‘get to heaven’, etc. Some things are just mysteries on this side of space-time, and its petty to conjecture about something we know nothing about, and then discard based on conjectures. Also, the idea that knowledge is the main means of/criterion for salvation seems odd to me. The NT implies (at the end of Revelation) from the people who are cast out of heaven are the ones who loved hatred/evil and twisted love/truth.
Anyway, I am out of my water now, as I haven’t read all Bertrand Russell’s stuff. (I’m planning too, as soon as I get the time...). However, if I remember correctly, his major reason for disbelieving a personal God is that it is so obvious that people would WANT a personal God and Christ, (I think “an older brother” were his words), and so it is so obvious it is something they WANT to believe…
Though that has some point to it, its also purely ad hominem, which isn’t the best reasoning. Also, by his own reasoning he disproves himself.
Do you think someone with his sex life would WANT Christ to be real? Of course not. Quite the opposite. Thats his own reasoning, but he disproves himself.
May the grace of Yeshua Hamoshiach, and the Love of God, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, be with you, forever.
----Rivka the daughter of Raibert the son of Ahuva
Greetings, David Fairthorne,
Your welcome. Yeah, Chesterton has quite a verbose style, but he sure makes your head spin. Its fun like a ride.
“The facts of life” are very miraculous indeed. The only difference between them and “miracles/supernatural” is that we see one and not the other. For example, gravity is a very magical and miraculous thing---its only a ‘natural explanation’ because we have seen its been around 13.7 After all, the law of gravity, and ‘natural explanation’ is only so ‘not miraculous’ because its been around a mere 13.7 billion years and we can shove it into a math equation. In fact, the very existence of math, intricate beautiful math, and all its complex beauty and recurring patterns (the golden mean, pi, etc.)...that if anything is quite ‘super-natural’.
But stop. Why? If that isn’t miraculous, what is? And if something happened a million times, does that mean it can’t happen any other way? If a women put on lipstick every morning for 60 years, and some mice who lived in the flat observed it over many generations, they would make it into a “Natural Law”. Its only been 13.7 billion years. And before that there wasn’t even ‘time’. Yes, there are ‘facts of life’ that happen again and again and again, and we call it ‘natural laws’.
Actually, isn’t there something ‘supernatural’ about the fact that gravity CAN be put into a math equation?
Math is only one example. There is a poetry running through the very core of the universe. (i.e. physics...)
As for goofy stories from quack-sounding religions.
1. Life is goofy (and beautiful). Think about reproduction and love.
2. A hundred quack doctors don’t automatically disprove one single real doctor. There have been many ‘scientific’ quacks, think eighteenth century theories.
Thanks, I filled my word limit, so I’ll continue below…
Rivka, thanks for the Chesterton essay, which I intend to read soon (it’s quite long).
Concerning the “facts of life”, I didn’t think they were in dispute! Lots of things are commonly called miracles, but that usually doesn’t mean that they’re supernatural. But if they occurred long ago, according to a holy book, and they involve events that defy natural explanation, I doubt their historical truth. For instance I find it hard to believe that the archangel Gabriel gave Muhammad a winged horse which he rode to visit God. I can only accept stories like that as mythology.
My doubts about Christianity arose sixty years ago when I wondered how Jesus could “save” people who never knew about him; that would condemn everyone who lived before his time, which seemed unfair. Probably theologians have an answer to that question, but now thanks to Bertrand Russell and others I have better reasons for denying the existence of God (except in the imaginations of believers).
Page 1 of 5 : 1 2 3 > Last »