If literary critic Stanley Fish deconstructed anything, one might expect him to deconstruct Christianity. Instead Fish uses his unquestioned rhetoric skills to deconstruct atheism. Fish takes up the argument, advanced by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, that belief in God is a kind of evasion. We avoid the responsibilities of this life by putting our hopes in another life. Religion makes us do crazy things.
Fish takes as an example of the Harris-Hitchens-Dawkins critique the behavior of Christian in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Christian becomes aware that he is carrying a huge burden on his back (Original Sin) and he wants to get rid of it. Another fellow named Evangelist tells him to "flee the wrath to come." Evangelist points Christian in the direction of a shining light. But Christian can't clearly see the light. Still, he begins to run in that direction. Bunyan describes his wife and children who "began to cry after him to return, but the man put his fingers in his ears and ran on, crying Life! Life! Eternal Life!"
For Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, this is precisely the kind of crazy behavior that religion produces. Here is a man abandoning his duties and chasing after something he isn't even sure about. Fish writes, "I have imagined this criticism coming from outside the narrative, but in fact it is right there on the inside." Bunyan not only has Christian's wife and children imploring him to return, he also has Christian's friends struggling to make sense of his actions.
Fish comments, "What this shows is that the objections Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens make to religious thinking are themselves part of religious thinking. Rather than being swept under the rug of a seamless discourse, they are the very motor of that discourse." Citing the atheists' portrait of religion as unquestioning obedienece, Fish writes, "I know of no religious framework that offers such a complacement picture of the life of faith, a life that is always presented as a minefield of difficulties, obstacles and temptations that must be negotiated by a limited creature in the effort to become aligned with the Infinite."
Fish's conclusion: while religious people over the centuries have dug deeply into the questions of life, along come our shallow atheists who present arguments as if they first thought of them, arguments that Christians have long examined with a seriousness and care that is missing in contemporary atheist discourse. We can expect our unbelieving trio to react with their trademark scorn, but Fish has scored a telling point.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 17)
16. I read Fish's article. I guess anyone can be essayist these days, even stupid people.
Titus at 1:53PM on Jun 27th 2007
17. While atheism may not be an entirely new convention, we are only now reaching a point in history where such a view point is allowed to exist. The irrationality of religion has caused millions of people over centuries to be tortured and killed for having beliefs contrary to the popular Judeo-Christian model. To say that atheism is in itself a religiuos dogmatic practice because it acknowledges the idea of God, is flawed. Religion has shaped the world and especially this country. If there was no religion, or concept of God, then you could truly be atheist? That makes no sense.
Scott Rosenbluth at 1:32PM on Jun 27th 2007
18. Dinesh writes: "Fish's conclusion: while religious people over the centuries have dug deeply into the questions of life, along come our shallow atheists who present arguments as if they first thought of them, arguments that Christians have long examined with a seriousness and care that is missing in contemporary atheist discourse.”
There have been atheists around for centuries “digging deeply into the questions of life.” I believe that Democritus and Anaxagorus are examples. Hume is an example. Probably some of the first organisms to live on earth that were similar to me didn’t have a God belief. And probably some actively didn’t believe in God. But whether humans have been grappling with whether there is a God for a long time is not particularly important to whether I know (or am warranted in inferring) that there is a God. People had been grappling for a long time about what events caused the existence of the first human beings on earth. And then Charles Darwin made significant progress. People had been grappling along time about whether the earth revolves around the sun or visa versa and about whether the earth is flat.
Wes at 1:55PM on Jun 27th 2007
19. According to Fisher, Christianity is,..."a way of thinking they do not begin to understand."
'They' being Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris.
But who really understands this superstitious, meaningless drivel?
There are more kinds of Christian than there are breeds of dogs.
Christianity is a performance.
Christianity is a semi-disguised political movement.
Each Christian sect's tolerance of other Christian sects begins exactly where their power and influence end.
Christianity is rife with hypocrisy and avarice.
If there is the tiniest kernel of truth to Christianity it is certainly not seen in everyday living.
Where is all the 'turning of the cheek' when it comes to Mr. D'Souza, gleefully 'button-pushing' and sniping away and fast as his little homophobic fingers can tap?
Where is truth when Ken Berg is telling us that Christians are tolerant when they are traditionally intolerant*.... and he(Ken) is explaining this tolerance in comments on Mr. D'Souza's obviously intolerant blog?
*Six States still have legislation against hiring atheists.
pboyfloyd at 2:33PM on Jun 27th 2007
20. Actually we avoid the responsiblities of this life by refusing to accept them, via immature dodges like abortion. Killing a baby for convenience, is beyond irresponsiblity. And it's my impression that the atheists are those most support the taking of these lives as a "right". I also think that things like this tend to prove that religion promotes morality, and atheism promotes amorality.
Wally Lind at 4:01PM on Jun 27th 2007
21. One of the things that shows athiesm to be invalid is the great lengths that they go to to supress any other point of view.
This shows their whole premis to be flawed and weak.
I say let the I.D. and creation proponants have a
voice. If their premis is flawed and weak, it will show and be discredited.
The truth is that when the facts are presented in a debate, I.D. has so much creibility, it scares the athiests away.
The I.D. scientists' credentials are every much as
credibile as any athiest. And they (I.D. scientisys) have to know BOTH subjects well.
Breifly, lets take 'adaptation' for instance.
Big gaping holes in this idea.
What were these creatures before they adapted? How did they survive before they adapted if they needed to adapt to survive?
There are dozens of subjcts/creatures that have large question marks surrounding them.
Athiests don't question, they seemingly just 'believe'.
I would remind everyone that most of the books being written today are written by ex-evolutionists.
They must have discovered something that challenged their athiests beliefs. I suggest we read some of these books to see what that was.
Anita Brown at 4:17PM on Jun 27th 2007
22. Pbf - When did I say all Christians were tolerant? Obviously all Christians are not tolerant.
Ken Berg at 2:53PM on Jun 27th 2007
23. I think that it takes more faith to be a so called Atheist than it does to believe in God and Jesus Christ. to look around and see all the perfection of humanity, and nature, each cell doing just what it needs to do, and then say that this is all happenstance, a coincidence, luck from the big bang, well, how do you believe this unless you have an unbelieveable faith in luck and the mathematical improbablity of this being a chance occurance. I agree, that God , particularly the One True God represented by Christians, is the most reviled of all deities. he is not represented as Jesus told us to. that does'n make Him wrong, just His misguided representives!! And God Will Prevail
Robert at 2:55PM on Jun 27th 2007
24. Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship with the LORD, JESUS CHRIST !
Mike at 2:59PM on Jun 27th 2007
25. There you have it, Chuck is the master sugar coater "Humanistic Christianity" LOL...that's pleasing to the ears, why not call it "Love, Hugs, Kisses, Best Friends Christianity"
Mike is the master denier...Apparently having a relationship (not that there's anything wrong with that ey Mike, p.s. don't let him touch you) with a abstract being who may or may not have existed over 2000 years ago, and if so has been dead and buried (what's that called when you have a relationship with a dead person again? )is somehow not buying into the tenets of Christian dogma and doctrine.
jeff wismer at 3:14PM on Jun 27th 2007
26. I would rather have a tooth pulled via my rectum than talk to anyone about religion. When the faithful tell me that they'll "pray for me" because I choose not to follow their path, I have to wonder if they ever truley do. When the faithful label me & my family as "evil in the eyes of Allah" because I choose to think, & choose not to "submit", I wonder if they can look my 3 year old in the eyes, before they cleanse him of the earth.
I have read the bible, I have read the Quaran, I have read books by Joseph Campbell. I have come to the conclusion that the one thing the "faithful" always ingore is LOVE.
I have absolute faith in LOVE.
I know that gods purpose for my life is to love, to love myself, my family, my community, my planet, & ALL ITS PEOPLE.
Even the people who would harm me, destroy me & my family & all the "things" that I love, the only way I know to change their way of thinking is to LOVE them, to understand them, to help them.
This is what I know of God, As far as I'm concerned this is all I need to know, all that anyone needs to know.
Love is a verb, an action, through this action & only through this action will you come to know love the noun.
Deconstruction of anyone's beliefs, is not love, is not understanding, is not empathy, it's cruel, cold, & a waste of your gifts from god.
May peace be with you all.
Chris at 3:21PM on Jun 27th 2007
27. Spending years and years thinking about "the questions of life" really means nothing when those questions don't actually exist! Further, no atheist is putting forth ideas as if they thought of them first. That actually is the province of the internet xer apologist, who believes firmly that no one has thought up Pascal's Wager or the design argument before he has. He blindly pukes it out, thinking that it will win the day. He doesn't realize that someone else thought it up before, and that still others have refuted it time and again. What Harris, et al. are doing is simply bringing it up for those who may not have read Chaucer or Bunyan.
Fish is also blantantly dishonest when he writes: ""I know of no religious framework that offers such a complacement picture of the life of faith, a life that is always presented as a minefield of difficulties, obstacles and temptations that must be negotiated by a limited creature in the effort to become aligned with the Infinite."
That is PRECISELY what christianity is all about! Temptations. Difficulties. Veil of Tears (thank you, Augustine). Original Sin. Sin tendency. Satan. All have to be overcome in order to align one's self with god. So Fish is simply dismissing the entire history of christian doctrine as if it never existed. What balls does that take?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:58PM on Jun 27th 2007
28. To Anita:
"I say let the I.D. and creation proponants have a voice. If their premis is flawed and weak, it will show and be discredited."
It has been. The creationists (that IS what IDers are) now want to use Activist Judges to force the teaching of their religion in schools.
"Breifly, lets take 'adaptation' for instance.
Big gaping holes in this idea."
If by that you mean no holes, you're correct.
"What were these creatures before they adapted?"
Other creatures.
"How did they survive before they adapted if they needed to adapt to survive?"
Same as we do now.
"There are dozens of subjcts/creatures that have large question marks surrounding them.
Athiests don't question, they seemingly just 'believe'."
No, we question. Theists just believe.
"I would remind everyone that most of the books being written today are written by ex-evolutionists."
No, they are not.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:03PM on Jun 27th 2007
29. To Mike:
"Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship with the LORD, JESUS CHRIST !"
No, it's a religion. Stop being a coward. You have a system of rites and worship directed at a supernatural thing. You have a religion.
"***(religion)*** Christianity is the name given to the religion and (later) theology that arose among those who considered Jesus of Nazareth (c. 3 BCE - 26 CE) to be the "Lord's Anointed" (messiah) of ancient Jewish prophecy. Its signature ideas include the redemptive power of belief in Jesus as the Christ, original sin caused by human knowledge of good and evil, the intrinsic worth of all individuals, and altruistic love (agape). In its early centuries, Christianity experienced its share of doctrinal disputes but started out mainly as a religious community with its own set of practices and beliefs but not an explicitly philosophical theology. The development of early Christian theology owes much to the neo-Platonism of Augustine (354-430), including powerful strains of transcendentalism, metaphysical dualism, and a kind of tempered mysticism. In the late Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274 CE) turned Christian theology more towards Aristotelianism, but the secularism, rationalism, and holism of the Aristotelian world-view are fundamentally at odds with Christianity (although attempts to combine the two persist until today and are often called neo-Aristotelianism)."
http://www.ismbook.com/christianity.html
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:20PM on Jun 27th 2007
30. To Robert
" I think that it takes more faith to be a so called Atheist than it does to believe in God and Jesus Christ."
I think it takes more faith to not believe in Santa Claus than it does to believe in Santa Claus.
Same thing.
" to look around and see all the perfection of humanity,"
Argument from awe fallacy, as well as strawman (chance is not involved)
"I agree, that God , particularly the One True God represented by Christians, is the most reviled of all deities."
No--satan is, according to your myth.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:08PM on Jun 27th 2007