An article by Peter Berkowitz at the Wall Street Journal today jabs back at the recent wave of “new atheist” books, arguing that behind the fierce writing and charismatic authors, they’ve not presented much in the way of new or terribly persuasive arguments against religion. Berkowitz focuses primarily on Christopher Hitchens’ much-publicized God is Not Great: Hitchens may be eloquent, he says, but “his arguments do not come close to disproving God’s existence or demonstrating that religion is irredeemably evil.”
I have not read any of the many “new atheist” tomes on the market this year, but I’ve read (and linked to, as TC readers can attest) quite a few articles and online debates by and about the atheists writing them. And I’m glad Berkowitz has written this article, because I have to admit: as a Christian, I have not yet read or heard from these authors anything that feels particularly faith-shaking. It’s not that Dawkins, Hitchens, and company are stupid, or that they don’t raise important issues and questions. It’s just that the issues they do raise—old favorites like the apparently “evil” behavior by God in the Old Testament; religion allegedly causing only violence and bigotry; supposed contradictions in the Bible; etc.-have been pondered and addressed by generations of quite intelligent Christian writers and thinkers. When I read (for example) an angry denunciation of God’s “barbaric” actions in the Old Testament, I wonder: is this author unaware of what Christian scholars and theologians have said about this issue over the centuries? Is he aware of them but just finds them unsatisfactory? If he’s aware of Christian scholarship on the issue, why launch yet another volley of these same old critiques instead of addressing the Christian explanations for them?
To be fair, I’ve read more than one Christian essay or book that made the same mistake-valiantly battling atheism or evolution or whatever without stopping to wonder if their arguments might have been answered already.
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)
Loading ...
July 17, 2007 at 05:16
I know what you mean about not wanting to re-visit long dead fights, Andy. I critiqued one atheist’s denunciation of Christian values in Narnia (New Yorker, Dec 21, 2005) rather than continuing the debate, which I would have respected, and as you suggested they ought to do.
The lesson came for me in my Buddist prof’s appreciation of my criticism and willingness to discuss topics of faith and belief, more specifically, the beings we put our trust in, at a later time because I had a return for the atheist that caused him pause.
This reminds me of the movie, “The Reading Room” in which the benefactor of a free reading room in a bad section of LA, albeit black, was criticized for neglecting to highlight any classic books of color and ethnicity. He had nothing but classic, upper class texts, therefore, some of the leaders he was attempting to serve doubted his kinship with the people.
Since there is nothing new under the sun, but we are each unique in creation, I see these tired arguments as an opportunity to speak into an individual life—that we are being tempted, through impatience or ennui, to disregard, thus ignoring the person parroting the objections. Many God haters, like the Reading Room benefactor wouldn’t dream of reading “our” text, Scripture, so they share the fate of a broken record and it is up to the Holy Spirit in us to bridge the gap for them, reveal the error and prayerfully bring them home—or at least mark the path as clearly as possible.
July 17, 2007 at 07:37
Dawkins has stated that he doesn’t read theology because he doesn’t see it as necessary for his arguments against religion. I feel the same way as you do: his and Hitchens’ statements aren’t anything that I haven’t heard since middle school, and they don’t understand Christian perspectives on evil, the Hebrew Scriptures, etc. Sometimes, I don’t even think they are aware that theologians have been asking the same questions that atheists ask, only for several centuries longer.
July 17, 2007 at 09:34
I, myself, have never read Dawkins but from Micheal’s statement about Dawkins not reading theology sounds like he doesn’t have an open mind about religion. That is the very thing that most Atheist’s say about Christians. We don’t have an open mind and that is why we follow an unseen god.
And the fact that these old arguments/questions seem to pop up again and again might only be for the fact of selling books. Don’t write about something new, use the same old stuff but rephrase it.
I have never understood why an Atheist seems so bent on proving that there is no god. I understand why Christians want everyone to know God, so those they tell that accept Christ don’t go to hell, but what does an Atheist gain to speak against god and religion? It makes no sense. Only to say that they are searching for the truth and are not yet set free.
I can only guess at that but it just seems odd that you would fight against something that has no impact on your life.
Is it just me that thinks that way?