Comment (62)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggAtheism 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.
In partial response to David Page, with whom I mainly agree, the first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I think it is a matter of legal opinion whether the faith-based initiatives violate the establishment clause.
In the Canadian province of Ontario there was a recent election in which the Conservative leader (named Tory) campaigned for provincial funding of faith-based schools; currently only the Catholics enjoy this privilege, which Tory wanted to extend to other religions including Judaism and Islam. Fortunately the electorate didn’t buy that idea, and Mr. Tory even lost his own seat! Canada officially prides itself on being a multicultural society, which may not be such a good idea as it can be socially divisive.
In Britain, Muslims have demanded that some national laws be changed to conform to the Sharia laws of Islam. Some politicians have tried to woo the Islamic vote by pandering to Islamic demands, again in the name of multiculturalism. Given the violent nature of Islam, and its own intolerance to other religions from its very beginnings to the present day, this seems like a recipe for disaster. Rather than espouse multiculturalism, it would be better to unite the nation into a single culture based on British traditions (but preferably without an established church).
Yves Menard said:
“- Do you believe in God?
No!
Bang!!
-Do you believe in God?
Yes!
Then, do you believe in my God?
No!
Bang!!”
If this were true, sidewalks in front of the churches, mosques and synagogues would be covered in corpses every single day. It is precisely such hysterics that make atheism look silly (and many other things besides...)
Christopher Hitchens is an American now. He is also deliberately controversial and often just wrong. In America, a country where 80% of the population believe in guardian angels and less than 50% can find America on a map of the world, the religious argument has taken on a special meaning. The conservative Christians are trying, with some success, to undermine the institutions of democracy. They have weakened the separation of church and state with their Faith Based Initiatives. They have successfully supported preemptive war, torture and the elimination of Habeas Corpus. They are trying to write anti-gay discrimination into the US Constitution. They have changed the Constitutions in about 20 State to discriminate against gay people. So you see, here in America it is not an intellectual argument, it’s a fight to save everything that was good about our country.
In response to Mariusz Wesolowski, I agree that you cannot determine the existence or otherwise of something that’s undefined. But different Gods have different definitions, and there are differences of opinion about God’s attributes, even within the same religion.
I only call myself an “atheist” because that well known word suggests a lack of belief in God. But I am actually an “ignostic”, which goes beyond atheism. It’s a modern form of Logical Positivism. In my opinion if, as is commonly said, God is “supernatural” (meaning not a part of the natural universe), nobody can possibly tell whether or not He exists, let alone what attributes He may have. This opinion is not atheism, because it doesn’t even accept that “God” is a useful concept. There is a Wikipedia article on “Ignosticism” that explains this viewpoint and discusses the problem of defining God.
Here’s a brief, well argued book that’s well worth reading for its convincing, even-handed, and respectful rebuttal of Dawkins’ often prejudiced, intolerant, and misinformed claims: The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. Easily obtained through Amazon.com, the book is by Alister & Joanna Collicutt McGrath. The first author is at Oxford University, and both have strong scientific and theological backgrounds.
I’ll be happy to answer your questions, David P., but I cannot understand them. Could you, please, rephrase them in a more articulate fashion? Your quirky spelling and grammar don’t offer much help, either.
In all articles I have read about atheism and its increasing influence, there is one gap that most analysts ignore. While our atheist friends will always remind us about the excesses of religion in terms of terrorism and fanning wars, some how we keep silent about the violence and terror that have been unleashed on humanity in various places by atheist fanatics such as in former Communist States.
David Page,
For the record, the term “Atheists”, when used in the context of this article and most of these comments, refers to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and other vocal and intolerant advocates of atheism. Every form of intellectually shallowness, narrow mindedness, and blind adherence to unprovable atheistic dogmas that you find people commenting about here can be found in the writings of Richard Dawkins and others. I have commented extensively on a prior Mercatornet, but in no way was I directing my comments at atheists in general, whose personal beliefs are unknown to me. I can’t speak for other commentors but I suspect that they are also directing comments about “Atheists” toward atheism as espoused by these “public figures”.
My past comments have been directed at a number of aspects of the dogmas of these atheists. However, at the core, the pattern of thinking behind these dogmas seems to be an inability to reason beyond the empirical. This makes them closed to the transcendent which closes them, not just to God, but to “person”, “good”, “evil”, “value”, “justice”, and other non-empirically measureable, but very real and rational notions upon which all of society depends.
Their writings and rants remind me of the book “Flatland”. Two dimensional beings which occupied Flatland simply could not comprehend the notion of a sphere and so denied its possible existence. These beings were unable to think beyond their immediate two dimensional experience, leading to an inability to perceive the third dimension. Richard Dawkins and his crowd would feel right at home there.
If Atheists believe there is no God,why do they discuss God in the first place. Insecurity perhaps? incase, the miracles happening these days in various parts of the world, should prove them wrong, and assure them of a Supernatural being, who various cultures call various names.
The mind argues, but the it takes life’s experiences to discuss human beings and related aspects. The human person is not only mind, but also psycho , soma and spirit!!
Any doubts about this?
Three recollections . . .
About 1958 I read Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not A Christian and other Essays . . . I got off-the-track for a long time, the parish clergy at the time being unwilling or unable to discuss such matters with boys in their late teens
In seminary, ca 1975, I remember a book of Christian anthropology and a line which suggested that, as scientific man emptied the universe of its secrets , in time we would become face-to-face with the ultimate mystery . . .
I have long remembered the Psalmist who said that only the fool has said there is no God. Charles+
Personally, I don’t really care if somebody believes in a God, in Gods, or in the Great Whazoo in the Sky.
The problem is that those who believe have a tendancy to torture, maim and kill those who don’t or who believe differently:
- Do you believe in God?
No!
Bang!!
-Do you believe in God?
Yes!
Then, do you believe in my God?
No!
Bang!!
(Thanks to Georges Carlin)
As long as this remains so, and it will most probably always be so!, the effort must continue to “convert” as many peoply as pôssible to atheism.
Who are these Atheists your all talking about? Am I an Atheist if I don’t believe in a god I can chat with? Are Buddhists Atheists? Would someone please let me know. This Atheist your all talking about is beginning to look like a Straw Man.
Here is a quick witness:
God came as a man here on earth to pay for all your sins. By sins I mean breaking the Ten Commandments which are God’s law. The law was made as a mirror for us. In the same way, we don’t realize what a bad state we are in until we look into the “mirror” of the Ten Commandments. Have you stolen, lied, dishonored your mother and father etc. then you broke his laws, and the penalty is death. Revelation 21:8 says all liars have their part in the lake of fire. But God doesn’t want that to happen to you, nor do I.
Jesus died on the cross so that he took the punishment for the sins of this world for your sins and my sins; he was being bruised for our iniquities, the Bible says. He was paying our fines in his life’s blood so we can leave the courtroom on the Day of Judgment. He rose from the grave and defeated death. What we have to do is repent, which is turn away from sinning and trust in Jesus, that He died on that Cross for your sins and put your faith in him. Let him lead your life, then you will be forgiven of all your sins and have eternal life. Isn’t that great news!
God’s word declares that this is God’s plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God’s will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God.
Anonymous
l already have plenty of notoriety, thank you very much. I thrive on it.
Thanks, Dan; and I feel sure that you too are quite sensible ... apart from your irrational belief system!
You quote several passages from the Bible concerning doubt and faith. But that does not persuade me, because being an atheist I do not accept the Bible (or any other holy book)as a reliable source. To take an example, Bishop Usher, who took the Bible literally, used it to deduce that God created the universe in six days in the year 4004 BC. That contradicts the prevailing scientific opinion that the universe has existed for about 13.7 billion years. Even the Milky Way (our own galaxy) has a diameter of some 100,000 light years, so it must date back 96,000 years before the Christian God created the entire universe!
I note that the article derides “progressive” Catholicism and “liberal” protestantism, advocating a return to “traditional” Christianity, which I suppose means Biblical literalism.
Because I do not believe in the existence of any God, I cannot be expected to believe that God has a plan. So I feel free make my own plans regardless of the wishes of the Christian God or any other God. I even feel free to commit “sins” if they are not against the law of the land. But at least I do obey those three of the Ten Commandments which enjoin the reader not to worship any other god!
Historically, religious dogmas have often stood in the way of scientific discovery. In some cases Christian dogmas were (reluctantly) revised to suit modern conditions. Otherwise modern civilization as we know it would probably not exist. Muslims, who are not allowed to question the word of Allah, have been unable to participate in the discovery of the true nature of the physical world in which we live.
Page 3 of 5 : « First < 1 2 3 4 5 >