Atheism becomes fashionablePassionate tracts by the new missionaries of unbelief are selling like hotcakes. But are they rational?
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 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. |
related articlesmorebythisauthorfree updates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (62)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
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".
Comments (62)
ptt said...In reading some of the so called “liberal” attitudes of today’s more vocal atheists, I am reminded of a recent take on an old ‘60s bumper sticker: “Question Authority”. The new one has the same large letters saying “Question Authority”, but below in smaller print is “Don’t ask why. Just DO IT!!!”.
It is also interesting, in light of the self appointed experts in the alleged incompatibility of religious faith and scientific reason, to read the 3 October issue of Tech Talk. Tech Talk is the community newspaper of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The headline is about the appointment of the first ever “Chaplain to the Institute” which (to quote) “...underscores the role of religious life at MIT...”. It is note worthy that one of the world’s premier institutions of science and engineering created this chaplaincy position now: it isn’t a simple carry over of a long established (and outmoded) tradition.
Could it be that MIT has “lost it”: how dare they create such a position without first consulting Harris or Dawkins who could straighten them out on their obviously flawed reasoning. Or could it be that MIT, as an institution that prides itself on its scientific rationality, actually recognizes the complementary and mutually dependent roles of faith and reason?
-- | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 3:01 am
David Fairthorne said...Sixty years ago, when I was at school, I became an atheist, because it seemed self-evident that many Christian dogmas are in conflict both with everyday experience and with the discoveries of science.
The recent interest in atheism coincides with the rise of Islamic terrorism, which means that religion can no longer be safely ignored. If Muslims believe, as they must, that jihad is the express route to seventh heaven, they are being true to their faith by having the courage of their convictions, however misguided they may seem to infidels.
Unlike many Christians, who can ignore or reinterpret the more objectionable parts of the Bible without fear of retribution, Islamists are required to accept the entire Qur’an as the literal word of God, which must never be questioned. In my opinion, blind faith in supposedly holy books is the cause of holy wars, and should be opposed by whatever means are the most effective.
Canada | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 12:58 pm
Dan Marvin said...Very good article, bravo!
Something for David, about muslims and other religions.
I had a hang up about the word “religion”, how we were linked with all the false religions out there. I said The Greek suffix “ism” means “the theory of” and “ity” on the other hand means “state or quality of being”. I believe religion destroys and keeps people away from God; I hated to be called religious, then someone wrote to me, which summed it up perhaps better then I could of said.
“That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term “Justification.” They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.
We have to separate the biblical Jews from religious Jews. One had hope in the Messiah’s coming. They acted as a result of this promise. King David loved God because of the promise given to him by faith. The religious Jew (Judaism), as in the case today, denies Jesus and attempts to bring to God their religious efforts.
A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a “discipline” which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us “not guilty” because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their “religious” efforts to God to “save” them.
Don’t let that word religion, be a hindrance. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? (con’t)
United States | Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 3:51 am
Dan Marvin said...(con’t)
The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean.” (Moshe, carm.org)
We must be careful of our theology. In 2 John the 7th verse it is clear “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” We are to look to Jesus for leadership, not man. (click ‘believe church’ link) The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades to determine the fruit, it is obvious.
-- | Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 3:53 am
John Thomas said...This author is excellent in realising, and stating, that we (should)now all know that you can’t be “a child of the Enlightenment” and at the same time a religious believer (an Anglican bishop, living near me, supposedly claimed this). And also, he reveals that purely-human-manufactured ethics can only lead to badness - to the gas-chamber or the gulag archipelago (atheists/materialists attempting to criticise religion on ethical grounds are at best ludicrous ("what one animal does to another is ethically irrelevant” as one Christian writer accurately puts it)). The weakness with the radical atheists’ arguments is that they never suggest any point, purpose or reason why people might want to live their (brief) lives in this ultimately-dissatisfying world, if this is all there is - if they really claim that this life/world as we know it is in some sense satisfying or worthwhile, or has any kind of point to it, they are in the grip of a bigger delusion than any they accuse religious people of - but the critics of the radical atheists never bring this out, and always let the “Humanists” (joke!) get away with their nonsense too easily.
United Kingdom | Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 4:16 am
John A. Davison said...I am sorry that you do not respect my opinions on the idiotic debate that continues between two factions each of which is dead wrong. I have summarized my evolutionary perspective in the published “Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” which is frmly based on the contributions of some of the greatest biologists of the post-Darwinian era. Neither the atheist Darwinians nor the equally fanatical Christian Fundamentalists have ever contributed anything of substance to the great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny. What we witness here and elsewhere on most internet blogs has nothing to do with science ad never will have. As for both ontogeny and phylogeny -
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
United States | Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 6:45 am
Mariusz Wesolowski said...One could say many, many things in connection with this article but the most damaging argument against atheism has been stated in its title - “Atheism becomes fashionable.” Nothing can be fashionable and true at the same time. QED.
Canada | Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 3:04 am
Anonymous said...How ridiculous you are, Dan Marvin, to try and condemn the Catholic Church by quoting a book whose canon was defined by the Catholic Church. Ever hear of the Council of Carthage? Perhaps you should look it up. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of Irenaeus either. He had a thing or two to say about the Catholic Church in Rome and her bishops. Perhaps you should look him up too before you speak another word. I know you mean well, Dan, but you are nothing but a false prophet. You have no authority, and you obviously know nothing about Church history.
United States | Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 6:59 am
John A. Davison said...How can anyone place any credence whatsoever in the offerings from an anomymous commenter? Anonymity is nothing but cowardly licence for abuse and should be treated as such.
United States | Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 10:20 am
David Page said...PTT: MIT has long had on campus religious representation; Jewish, Muslim and Christian.
David Fairthorne: I won’t reply to your post because I simply couldn’t say it any better.
United States | Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 12:19 pm
David Fairthorne said...Thanks for your responses, Dan Marvin.
My main argument is that the very existence of gods can neither be proven nor disproven, at least not to my satisfaction.
Different religions say different and often contradictory things about their gods, and they cannot all be right. And some of the claims made by religions, such as life after death, seem quite preposterous and unsupported by evidence, which suggests to me that they are probably all wrong. Monotheistic religions have jealous gods, and one of the worst “sins” is to worship the wrong god. Their adherents feel strongly enough about these differences that they fight holy wars about which holy book, or which interpretation, is correct. Polytheistic religions are more tolerant, being willing to accept more gods into their pantheons; but those gods usually have more human and less supernatural characteristics.
Some specifically Christian claims, which are obviously contrary to nature, include the virgin birth of Jesus, his resurrection from the dead, and the very idea of a god in human form. The doctrine of transsubstantiation seems pretty far fetched. I consider that the “afterlife” concept is a case of wishful thinking, which some people cling to for fear of death. But traditionally heaven and hell have been used as carrot and stick, to keep the faithful in order. The supposed need for “faith” is a tacit acknowledgement of the absence of sufficient evidence.
All this being the case, I hold the opinion that gods exist only in peoples’ imaginations; in other words man created gods, and not the other way round.
Canada | Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 1:12 pm
David Fairthorne said...In answer to Mariusz Wesolowski, who condemns atheism solely because the author calls it fashionable, that has no bearing on its truth. There is a long tradition of free thinking. It has been said that few people doubted the existence of god until philosophers attempted to prove it!
Canada | Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 1:25 pm
Mariusz Wesolowski said...The fact that atheism has become trendy is not the sole reason for my condemnation of it. My main reason to reject atheism is the fact that it is based on ignorance - like a blind man talking about colors. Atheists don’t understand the difference between the natural and supernatural orders, and try to apply natural criteria to things supernatural. Science and religion are two completely different things and attempting to compare them is pointless. Similarly, the logic of religion is emphatically not the same as the logic of science, yet it is equally valid.
Canada | Friday, 19 October 2007 at 1:14 am
Anonymous said...Apparently, John A. Davison, who is proud of his words and perhaps hopes for notoriety on the web, is unfamiliar with logical fallacies and should look up “ad hominem” attack. That I challenge Dan Marvin’s ignorance has nothing whatsoever to do with what my name is. A false prophet is someone who preaches something that is not true. To use the Bible and condemn the Catholic Church simultaneously is self-contradictory as the canon of the Bible was defined by the Catholic Church. But maybe I am missing some subtlety in your claim. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how my name has anything to do with that assertion. I didn’t post my name because it is immaterial to the claims I made.
United States | Friday, 19 October 2007 at 1:55 am
Dan Marvin said...David,
You appear to be a sensible guy who puts his faith in mankind instead of God.
The Bible talks a great deal about doubt.
Deuteronomy 28:66 “And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:” Matthew 14:31 “And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” Luke 12:29 “And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.” Romans 14:23 “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
Doubting your belief system and entire denominations (man made) is healthy I feel. We are, after all, in Jesus’ rest and not much is required of us because all the work had been done already. We must not trust our own lying wickedness and make sure we are not pushing our own agendas over or replacing God’s. It is about leaving God entirely and abandoning Him.
To doubt God Himself or that Jesus is not Lord is so damaging that this atheism is a move from light to darkness. This is the point that 2 John the 7th verse it is clear about.
Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
God preserved His word and can be depended on. I beg all of you not to depend on, or lose faith because of, anything that mankind had done. We must have faith that God’s plan is true and sound and no one will get to heaven without Jesus.
-- | Friday, 19 October 2007 at 3:50 am
Page 1 of 5 : 1 2 3 > Last »