But there’s a sub-category of Committed atheism: It’s the New Atheism. “New Atheists”, informally led by “The Four Horsemen” – Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, & Christopher Hitchens – do not stop with their profession that “there is no God”. Neither do they tolerate religion. Instead, they are militant about their position. In fact, they think apathetic and committed atheists are cowards. They hate religion, saying it is the sole source for today’s evils. In a word, they are “anti-theists”.
“Why God Won’t Go Away”, by Alister McGrath, is not a tome on the defense of Christianity – or any other religion, for that matter. McGrath writes, “It is not my intention to argue the case for the Christian faith in this short volume…” (p.145). Neither is this title one where the author slings mud at the atheists who sling mud at the religious. It is also like a childhood playground argument: “God is not good”, “Yes He is”, “No he isn’t”, “Yes He is.”
Instead, “Why God Won’t Go Away” is a book that sheds light on the inconsistent positions the New Atheists posit. In the three primary sections of the book, McGrath discusses three core themes of attack New Atheists level against religion: “Violence”, “Reason”, and “Science”. The New Atheists attack on these fronts because “New Atheism is characterized more by its attacks on religion than by its own positive beliefs…” (p.45).
Citing several historical events, McGrath brings injury to the New Atheist positions because “such irrational hatred [is] what the New Atheists want us to believe is characteristic only of religion” (p.50). He does well in pointing out the New Atheist flaws and inconsistencies (something too detailed to describe in this brief review), and he does it without demeaning or belittling those who hold the atheistic position.
“Why God Won’t Go Away” is intelligently written and presented – although the New Atheists will never accept anything that’s not atheist as being remotely intelligent. Reading this book was truly a pleasure, and I highly recommend it if the on-going conversation interests you. You will see that the New Atheism is, in fact, running on empty. I give this one 5 stars out of 5.
I was given this free book by Booksneeze in exchange for my unbiased review. All opinions are mine. I was not coerced or threatened to provide a positive review of this title.
How could I not weigh in on this one?
ReplyDeleteTo start, I haven't read Alister McGrath's book, though I did watch a rather enjoyable conversation between him and Richard Dawkins some time ago, and you can see part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18 It's worth checking out.
Concerning the "New Atheists," I don't think it is accurate to say that they do not tolerate religion, and I don't think it is demonstrable to show that to be the case. I cannot think of one single atheist, especially of the "four horseman" mentioned, that does not respect the right of each person to believe how they choose. Of course they would try through reasoned argument to persuade people from religion, but this is a far cry from "not tolerating." I don't think that is a fair assessment. In addition, something you claim as fact... "They hate religion, saying it is the sole source for today's evils," is not fact at all. Could you please give me a source or quote of one of the "horseman" who has said that religion is the SOLE SOURCE of today's evils? If you're going to point to Richard Dawkins' documentary "The Root of All Evil?" be sure you note the question mark, as well as that not being his choice of title, but the choice of the network to create controversy.
“New Atheism is characterized more by its attacks on religion than by its own positive beliefs…” (p.45). This is a bit of a ridiculous statement on the part of McGrath. Atheism is not about holding positive beliefs. The word atheist is used as a descriptor of someone who does not hold a positive belief in a god or gods. Outside of that, atheists hold many varied and differing beliefs from one another. There is no unified "atheist position" or "statement of beliefs." The notion in and of itself does not make any sense. I'm kind of surprised McGrath would assert that in his book.
"Citing several historical events, McGrath brings injury to the New Atheist positions" -- Obviously not having read the book, I can't comment much here. I will say however that unless he's presenting some sort of new argument that isn't full of holes and logical fallacies, there probably isn't much new under the sun that he's offering up. I'd be curious to see what he's actually putting forward.
"the New Atheists will never accept anything that’s not atheist as being remotely intelligent. " I think yet again this is not an accurate statement. Atheists, "new atheists" included, do not think theists are all a bunch of unintelligent dolts. They may not think their belief system is rational, but outside of that they do not consider things posited by theists as "non-intelligent."
"You will see that the New Atheism is, in fact, running on empty." McGrath of course is preaching to the choir. I read atheist books (I haven't read Dennett yet, but he's on my list) as well as Christian books challenging atheism. I even read atheist and Christian books that are challenges and responses to one another. It is one thing to read a book degrading the positions and arguments of other books and saying, "Yeah, I agree with that" when you haven't read the arguments in context and in their entirety. It's quite another to actually read the books being refuted to give them a fair shake.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteI guess I will respond to your comments in four issues:
(1)New Atheists and their respect for other views;
(2)Religion and the source of evil;
(3)Non-atheists are unintelligent;
(4)On reading other works.
1) Regarding respect: You wrote, “I don’t think it is accurate to say they do not tolerate religion… I cannot think of one single atheist…that does not respect the right of each person to believe as they choose.”
Actually, you’re right on the first point. They tolerate religion…but only because they are forced to do so. God – as well as religion – isn’t going away. They have no choice BUT to tolerate religion and deal with its ongoing existence.
Second, if they respect the right of others to believe other than they do, is that why Christopher Hitchens declared Mother Theresa, “a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud” and “millions of people are much worse off because of her life”? He even stated it was a shame there was no hell for her to go to. If that isn’t respect, I don’t know what is.
In fact, I dare you to call your wife a “petty, unjust, vindictive, unforgiving control-freak” (The God Delusion) etc., and ask her if she feels loved and respected. It’s doubtful she will. Now, I don’t for one second think Dawkins is obligated to pay God any homage, especially since he doesn’t even believe He exists. But if he says it about God, what does he REALLY think of those whose position is different from his own? He has no respect for anyone else’s position…not even yours if you disagree with him on just one point here or there.
2) Regarding religion and the source of evil: McGrath cites a lecture delivered in 1932 by William Temple, archbishop of York, (and the 4 horsemen fully espouse the same sentiments) that religion has done more harm to humanity than good. He even described it as the “chief enemy”. Not simply an enemy, but the chief enemy. There is no doubt that the New Atheists want religion to go away…it’s inherent in their writings. I wonder if they’re saying this about abortion, or divorce, or even of vile, mean atheists. Doubtful (I can only speculate). Instead, their vitriol is directed at public enemy #1 – Religion. In their worldview, if religion vanished, evil would be (and I’ll agree to this level with you on my use of the word “sole”) largely – very largely – eradicated.
(overall response was too long for comments...could only be a certain length so I had to cut it in half.)
ReplyDelete3) Regarding non-atheists unintelligence. You said, the New Atheists “do not think theists are all a bunch of unintelligent dolts.” If they think religious people are capable of being intelligent, why did Dawkins himself say, “You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution” ?? (Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard)
Or this: It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). -- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001) Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)
His line of reasoning would look something like this:
MAJOR PREMISE: Only sane and well-educated people believe in evolution;
MINOR PREMISE: Religious people do not believe in evolution;
CONCLUSION: Therefore, religious people are neither sane nor intelligent.
Is that your opinion, too, Eric? Am I insane? Am I unintelligent (uneducated)? Are religious people insane and unintelligent. Dawkins seems to think so. You may not say/think it, but THEY certainly have! Oh, and be careful about not agreeing with Dawkins…because he won’t respect your position either, Eric.
4) Regarding reading other works. I’m going to assume your paragraph about “not reading their arguments in context in their entirety and giving them a fair shake” wasn’t intended for McGrath. It would be foolish to think he would debate in public forums without having read their works.
So I must assume you intended it for me. I could be wrong, but if not, I’m ok with that. Here’s the skinny, though: I have read “The God Delusion”, “The End of Faith”, “Letter to a Christian Nation”, and “God is not Great”...all from beginning to end – not Christian books written ABOUT those writings, but the writings/books themselves. As a side not, I even liked “God is not Great”. I actually liked it better than I liked Dinesh D’Souza’s rebuttal “What’s so Great about Christianity”. I have given atheism a fair shake, and continue to do so. But I still find the atheist position empty and still lacking.
By way of comparison, you mentioned yourself that you have not read McGrath’s book, but are still willing to comment on it without giving him a “fair shake” (3rd paragraph from the end). By the way, this is why I mentioned in my original review that I could not detail every single point McGrath made in the book. Otherwise, I’d have to write my own book, and that’s not the point of a review.
Conclusion: Like one blogger wrote, "If it is only banal nonsense why worry about
the Church???Progress will kill it!"
I don't think atheists tolerate religion because they are forced to do so. Atheists tolerate religion, because in general they believe in freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I'm sure there are some kook atheists out there who would like to take out religion by force, but they are fringe and as a whole this is not the case with the majority of atheists. You will not find any one of the four horseman that would advocate such action.
ReplyDelete"Second, if they respect the right of others to believe other than they do, is that why Christopher Hitchens declared Mother Theresa..."
What does this have to do with respecting another person's right to believe what they want? Christopher Hitchens may not respect Mother Theresa or her beliefs, but this is completely different from not respecting a right to believe. We're not arguing that atheists respect a theist position. We're arguing that atheists respect a theists right to believe.
"In fact, I dare you to call your wife a “petty, unjust, vindictive, unforgiving control-freak” (The God Delusion) etc., and ask her if she feels loved and respected."
If your wife WAS a "petty, unjust, vindictive, unforgiving control-freak" would YOU feel loved and respected?
"...But if he says it about God, what does he REALLY think of those whose position is different from his own?"
I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. I'm sure if the shoe fit, Dawkins wouldn't have an issue saying that about someone. However, you're taking his thoughts about the actions of deity and saying because he says that about a deity, it must automatically mean he thinks that about anyone he disagrees with. It doesn't follow that that has to be the logical conclusion. Also, again, respect for a position or beliefs isn't an automatic, and isn't what we were talking about. We're talking about respecting the right to hold those beliefs.
"that religion has done more harm to humanity than good. He even described it as the “chief enemy"...
This is a far cry from espousing religion as "the sole source" of all evil.
"There is no doubt that the New Atheists want religion to go away…it’s inherent in their writings."
I don't disagree at all. I'm sure they do, but them wanting it to go away, and them not respecting the rights of people to believe are two different things.
"In their worldview, if religion vanished, evil would be (and I’ll agree to this level with you on my use of the word “sole”) largely – very largely – eradicated."
I don't think any atheist is under the delusion that if religion was gotten rid of that we still wouldn't have to deal with: greed, hatred, injustice, war, etc. etc. So to say that they believe evil would be eradicated I think overstates things. I'm sure they would say that a lot of problems would be taken care of though.
"Regarding non-atheists unintelligence... why did Dawkins himself say, 'You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution..."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure from reading McGrath you know that he does not doubt evolution. Neither does Francis Collins nor a plethora of other believers. Now from a theological standpoint, I have no idea how these people hold their faith together. No biblical creation = no fall = no need for Jesus. However, the evidence for evolution is in all honesty undeniable. While I don't know how they maintain their faith with the implications of evolution, I commend them for not allowing their beliefs to override the undeniable evidence. All that to say... Dawkins may consider creationists to be dolts, but I of course was making reference to theists in general. I think we could both agree that Dawkins does not consider McGrath a dolt, who happens to be a theist, though he would certainly think his beliefs are unjustified.
"Is that your opinion, too, Eric? Am I insane? Am I unintelligent (uneducated)?...Dawkins…because he won’t respect your position either, Eric."
Certainly not, and atheists like Christians, disagree about a great many things. You could say they're a very independent lot with differing opinions, and they're not afraid to disagree with one another. I think the only thing that keeps you from accepting evolution are the theological implications. I understand why you have such a hard time accepting it, and it's not so much an issue of intelligence, as much as it is an issue of "the heart." I think you're an intelligent and thoughtful person, despite the fact that I disagree with you.
Concerning reading the books, I was directing it towards you, and I'd like to commend you for taking the time to read the other side. Most won't, and most Christians won't. I think we both can agree that Rob Bell's latest book is a good example of that. Christians everywhere denouncing it without ever cracking the cover. As far as my commenting on McGrath's book, I'm more commenting on the points in your review. This is why I started by stating I hadn't read it, and ended the 3rd paragraph by saying I'd be interested to hear the arguments he was putting forward.
"Conclusion: Like one blogger wrote, "If it is only banal nonsense why worry about the Church???Progress will kill it!"
Eventually progress will overtake religion. Both Christian and Secular research shows this is happening and has been happening for some time. So, why worry about it? This is a question that is difficult to see the answer to unless you are standing in my shoes, or in the shoes of countless others who have made the journey down the road to apostasy. You don't quite see the damage religion causes when everyone around you thinks the same. You don't know what it is like to watch those you care for be paralyzed and tormented by the fear that they will spend and eternity in bliss, while you writhe in torment and torture. The fear that overtakes them day and night, and causes them to go without sleep. It causes them heartache. The level of stress they endure mentally at the spectre of eternity is damning to this life, the only one they are sure to have. Others of course have dealt with their family literally disowning them and kicking them to the curb. Others have endured the psychological abuse of so-called exorcisms to cast out "spirits of rebellion" and so forth, while other have been physically abused. Put yourself in my shoes, and in the shoes of countless other atheists for a moment and ask yourself this question: "If I truly - truly believed it was all 'banal nonsense,' could I sit idly by while my loved ones were miserable and sick over nothing more than superstition? Could I do nothing when convincing even some might help to ensure that others don't waste the only life they'll ever get on worrying over tall tales?"