In a recent editorial, Peter Berkowitz proclaims that what he calls the “new new atheism” – popularized by books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens – is basically the same as “old” atheism.
In some sense, he may have a point. After all, how many ways can one possibly talk about not accepting ideas that either are provided with no supporting evidence or are contradictory to the evidence? But in keeping with Berkowitz’s “there’s nothing new under the sun” theme, I’d like to point out that his criticisms of the “new new atheism” are … nothing new, themselves. More below the fold.
Unlike the Enlightenment atheism of the 18th century, which arose in a still predominantly religious society and which frequently went to some effort to disguise or mute its disbelief, the new new atheism proclaims its hatred of God and organized religion loudly and proudly from the rooftops.
This criticism, I think, has been around since the first atheist dared express disbelief. “You just hate God!” It’s awfully hard to hate something that you don’t believe exists in the first place.
And if an atheist dislikes organized religions, that at worst makes the atheist position on most organized religions no different than that of your average theist. (How many Christians love the Church of Scientology? Islam? Shinto? Wicca?)
They contend that from the vantage point of the 21st century, and thanks to the moral progress of mankind and the achievements of natural science, we can now know, with finality and certainty, that God does not exist and organized religion is a fraud.
Even “the great Satan” Dawkins himself doesn’t actually say that “with finality and certainty, God does not exist”. He merely states that God “almost certainly” does not exist. That’s actually an important distinction. It leaves the door open for believers to put up … or shut up.
Unfortunately, an untold number of believers believing in their religions over millennia have yet to furnish a shred of credible evidence for their gods. Atheists draw the simple conclusion that those beings so fervently worshiped despite defying all we know about the universe … probably don’t exist.
But his arguments do not come close to disproving God’s existence or demonstrating that religion is irredeemably evil. Consider Mr. Hitchens’s contention, elaborated at length and with gusto, that religion by its very nature compels people to behave cruelly and violently. According to Mr. Hitchens, religion educates children to hate nonbelievers, encourages grown-ups to engage in slaughter and conquest for God’s greater glory, and obliges the “true believer” to restlessly circle the globe subduing peoples and nations until “the whole world bows the knee.”
M
I’m no fan of Christopher Hitchens – and as such haven’t read his book – so Berkowitz may be accurate in noting that Hitchens arguments are over the top. (I have no way of knowing.) But I can look at the arguments presented here. Hitchens apparently claims that religion educated children to hate nonbelievers. While that might not be true for all religions, it’s certainly true of the more virulent strains of fundamentalism (which can be found all over the world, not just in the Middle East) It’s certainly true of the fundamentalist Christianity preached at the religious school I attended as a young child, and other branches of Christian fundamentalism that I’m familiar with act no differently.
As to religion encourag[ing] grown-ups to engage in slaughter and conquest”, I don’t think you need to look farther than the Middle East – or perhaps merely to New York – to see evidence for that idea. Myself, I see the religion as more of an enabler than a cause of all the mayhem that takes place “in God’s name”. But I don’t see it as unreasonable to ask – would there be less of the mayhem without religion to enable it?
Berkowitz then puts forth perhaps the lamest justification of the cruelty in the Christian Bible that I have ever seen.
Mr. Hitchens heaps scorn on the biblical story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac, in which, at the last moment, an angel stays Abraham’s hand. What kind of barbarian, wonders Mr. Hitchens, would prepare to sacrifice his son at God’s command, and what kind of morally stunted individuals would honor such a man, or the deity who made the demand? Yet Mr. Hitchens’s categorical claim that religion poisons everything is undermined by the common interpretation according to which God’s testing of Abraham taught, among other things, that the then widespread practice of child-sacrifice was contrary to God’s will, and must be put to an end forever.
[Emphasis mine.] So, all that stuff in the Old Testament is just a set of examples of things not to do? Preposterous. For an encore, perhaps Berkowitz will go on to prove that black is white and get himself killed at the next zebra crossing. Perhaps, though, Berkowitz has never made it out o the book of Genesis, in which case he may not have encountered the story of Jephthah, in which a father sacrifices his only (virgin) daughter to God after a successful battle. God felt no need to intervene in that sacrifice. You might argue, of course, that perhaps Jephthah’s daughter was too old to be considered a child sacrifice, but you won’t find much love for children elsewhere in the Old Testament, what with God and his chosen people (and sometimes his chosen bears) wiping them out left and right.
Later, Berkowitz takes issue with a point about science.
Mr. Hitchens presumably still would cling to his claim that the findings of modern science prove that God does not exist. Thanks to the knowledge we have attained of how the natural order actually operates–in particular the discoveries of Charles Darwin and modern physics–he concludes that “all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.”
This conclusion, however, contradicts that of the late Stephen Jay Gould, to whom Mr. Hitchens himself refers as a “great paleontologist” and whose authority he invokes in support of the proposition that randomness is an essential feature of evolution. Noting surveys that showed that half of all scientists are religious, Gould commented amusingly that “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs–and equally compatible with atheism.”
While I’d reject the notion that science has “proved God doesn’t exist”, what science has done is given gods a much smaller role in our day-to-day lives. We do not (anymore) need to invoke a god to explain why the sun rises, or why the start move about the way they do. We need invoke no god to explain why the sky is blue, or why humans share so much genetic information with other life on our planet. God’s gaps – the gaps n our knowledge – grow smaller and smaller – and right now they’re rather minuscule compared to their size when the major religions were created. Perhaps that was Hitchens’ point about science. Or maybe it was the point he should have made.
As for Gould’s point. Sure, science an coexist with a religion that claims no interference in the natural world. But many people don’t worship a god like that. At least, not traditional Muslims or Christians.
Skipping down a bit, Berkowitz concludes
That a teaching is sublime and sustaining does not make it true. But that, along with its service in laying the moral foundations in the Western world for the belief in the dignity of all men and women–a belief that our new new atheists take for granted and for which they provide no compelling alternative foundation–is reason enough to give the variety of religions a fair hearing.
What, exactly, is “a fair hearing”? For someone of a scientific bent, that would involve evidence that supports the ideas being offered. Such evidence has not been offered. And that’s really the bottom line. Atheists do not feel the compulsion to believe in god or gods merely on the grounds that their teaching is comforting or “sustaining”. And that’s just how the old old atheists and old old theists argue. 🙂