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 3 of 17)
31. for the life of me i will never understand why agnostics or atheists care whether or not i believe in GOD or not...how is my belief having any effect on them?...only this - they hate - that's the key word here, hate - when someone expresses a belief in any type of GOD, but especially in a judeo-christian GOD...and why?... because they get attention for it here...why don't they go to the middle east and get on their soapboxes there and say that there is no allah... our problems would be solved, and we could go on saying "one nation under GOD" to our hearts' content... remember, the aclu was founded by communistic types in the mid-20th century to fight against the things we hold dear in this country... don't scoff, do your homework...the BIBLE is right when it says" in the end times good will be called evil and evil good"...i will never stop praying to the only true GOD, YAHWEH, for my daily bread, and for the souls of those who have yet to see, albeit through a glass dimly, the face of GOD... he is real, he cares equally for us all, and he stands at the door knocking, so that whomever opens the door to HIM, with that person he will enter in and dine...how cool is that?...quit being so obstinate about what i believe, and swallow your pride (which goes before the fall) and bow your knee willingly to HIM while you can still do so of your own free will... because every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that JESUS IS LORD...it's kind of like the fram oil filter commercial that used to be on a few years ago - "you can pay me now or pay me later"...
VIC POWERS at 4:21PM on Jun 27th 2007
32. To Wally:
" Actually we avoid the responsiblities of this life by refusing to accept them, via immature dodges like abortion."
We're still using the dictionary definition of responsibility, right?
Responsibility: (n) 1. the state or position of being responsible. 2. a person or thing for which one is responsible.
Responsible: (adj) 1. having control or authority over. 2. being accountable for one's actions and decisions. 3. involving decision and
accountability. 4. being the agent or cause (of some action). 5. rational and accountable for one's own actions.
Please explain how abortion is avoiding responsibility.
" Killing a baby for convenience,"
Emotive and special plead, as well as poisoning the well.
" is beyond irresponsiblity."
Prove it.
" And it's my impression that the atheists are those most support the taking of these lives as a "right"."
It is. Or don't you believe that women own themselves?
"I also think that things like this tend to prove that religion promotes morality, and atheism promotes amorality."
In that, you're correct in the sense that atheism is a lack of belief. It doesn't promote anything at all. But you're only accidentally correct, and don't understand the reason why you are correct. That ultimately means that you're essentially wrong.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:13PM on Jun 27th 2007
33. Athiests conviently forget all the high crimes that athiests have committed over the centuries. There are pleanty of accusations against, so called, christians, though.
Religion is for the most part, a bad thing. It consists of rituals, rites, uniforms or garb, creeds and doctrines, and so on. That infers that everyone has to be alike. Sometimes it is promoted with an axe or other weapon. This insistance on conformity is a demeaning element and goes against what God intended for humanity. Therefore I don't associate the true God of scripture with these
trappings or dogmas.
God gave all humanity FREE WILL. And He had only two commands, 'Don't eat the fruit of two trees.
Free will gives us choices to do good or wrong.
He gave us free will because we can't love without it. To demand conformity goes against free will.
Man chose to disobey even though he was living in perfection. Go figure. Thus insued all the troubles of the world becaue man makes wrong choices.
As for this invisible powerful intelligence we serve
it can make more sense than the NOTHING TOOK NOTHING AND CREATED EVERYTHING OUT OF IT.
SOME OF THE MOST POWERFUL THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE
ARE, IN FACT, INVISIBLE.
Would you call gravity, magnatism and wind crazy notions. All invisible but REAL.
Yes, some things that are invisible to the naked eye
are seen through various instruments and wind can be known by what it does.
I submit, so can God.
Anita Brown at 5:36AM on Jun 29th 2007
34. How is any of this claptrap supposed to "deconstruct atheism?" That theologians have spent thousands of years writing erudite discourses on the fine points of their doctrine doesn't mean a hill of beans if their God doesn't exist. That's the fundamental question: *does God exist?* If the theists can tell us exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but can't substantiate their beliefs, so what?
For me, all it would take is for God to "be real," somehow. I think there ought to be some effect we could observe in reality that makes the first of the following claims more probable than the second:
1) There are millions of people living on Earth today who have a direct, personal relationship with an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omni-Benevolent Being called "God," Who is their Parent and Best Friend.
2) "God" is imaginary.
Shouldn't all of those truth-claims in statement #1 have some sort of detectable effects beyond "I feel Him in my heart?" Lets have a look at these next two statements:
1) In my apartment live two smallish creatures called "cats." They have sharp teeth and claws, and like to chase things, including each other. They're beautiful, soft, they make a purring sound when petted, and they're waiting for me in the window when I come home from work.
2) "Cats" are imaginary.
It requires no mental gymnastics, no faith, no vast capacity to explain away the lack of evidence for "cats" in order for me to believe in them. To the contrary, even if I personally did not have "cats," it would take a great deal of mental gymanstics for me to maintain a belief that "cats" are imaginary. That's because "cats" are real and have real effects. The same thing applies even to invisible, intangible things like "radio waves" and "neutrinos." Things that are *real* have *real effects.* "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
A "God" that is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omni-Benevolent, and has a direct, personal relationship with millions of people ought to be the elephant in the living room of the Cosmos, by definition. To go on and on and on about how big, powerful, ubiquitous, and so on "God" is, and then explain that he is harder to detect than neutrinos--which are so insubstantial they can shoot straight through planet Earth at light speed as if it's not even there--is a feat of mental gymnastics that beggars the imagination.
If "God" is real in the here and now, and is anything like what our religions advertize, the fact of his existence ought to be a little more obvious than relatively minor aspects of reality like neutrinos and cats. And don't bother making ooky-spooky gestures and saying in menacing tones, "You'll see God aaaafter you diiiiiie!" Since that "argument" wouldn't convince you to believe in Osiris or Quetzalcoatl, don't expect it to convince us to believe in Yahweh.
kcrady at 4:26PM on Jun 27th 2007
35. Regarding richter's comment (#14),
I had you figured for an atheist, but I am glad to see that you share "kinship" with those who follow the central tenet of Christianity.
richard at 12:30PM on Jun 28th 2007
36. One more thing for Anita
"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."
Actually, it's the theists who wish to suppress any dissent. Remember the Index Librorum Prohibitorum? How about the banning of competing views in militant islam?
And the word is "a-t-h-E-I-s-m".
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:24PM on Jun 27th 2007
37. "for the life of me i will never understand why agnostics or atheists care whether or not i believe in GOD or not"
We don't. We don't understand the hatred theists have for atheists. We don't understand why you won't leave us alone.
" remember, the aclu was founded by communistic types"
Remember: trying to bring that up as an assault on the ACLU is the poisoning the well fallacy.
"in the mid-20th century to fight against the things we hold dear in this country... don't scoff, do your homework...the BIBLE is right when it says" in the end times good will be called evil and evil good""
That's what the bible does: it calls good evil and evil good. It says humans are evil and god is good. That's backward.
"...i will never stop praying to the only true GOD, YAHWEH, for my daily bread,"
Rather than the baker who makes it.
"and for the souls of those who have yet to see, albeit through a glass dimly, the face of GOD... he is real,"
No, there is no god.
"..quit being so obstinate about what i believe, and swallow your pride"
Why should we? Why shouldn't you get some self-resepect?
"(which goes before the fall) and bow your knee"
Knees do not bow.
" willingly to HIM while you can still do so of your own free will"
Why? So we can avoid the mythical hell?
"... because every knee will bow"
Knees do not bow.
" and every tongue will confess "
Tongues do not confess.
"that JESUS IS LORD...it's kind of like the fram oil filter commercial that used to be on a few years ago - "you can pay me now or pay me later"..."
No, it's nothing like that. What it is like is the mafia tactic of extortion. Only there's no real hell to be scared of. It's all in your mind, infant.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 4:28PM on Jun 27th 2007
38. Anita Brown says that "one of the things that shows atheism to be invalid is the great lengths they go to suppress other points of view."
Well, Anita, at least we haven't yet gone to the "great length" of burning people at the stake to "suppress other points of view" which is what the Christian church did for hundreds of years. And not just to atheists, but to other Christians who didn't believe or worship in exactly the right way and to "witches" and whatever other hobgoblins superstitious people believe in. And it wasn't just the Catholics doing this stuff. Check out the anti-semitic tirades of Luther and look at what the Puritan Fathers did to the "uppity" women of Salem, Massachusetts.
And then, finally, the most intelligent people in Europe said "enough is enough", and the Enlightenment was born. Religion never really recovered and has been fighting a holding action ever since.
emelpe at 1:39PM on Jun 28th 2007
39. It is regrettable that we, as humans, are still having this debate. The sanatana dharma teaches that each life is a reflection of God's conciousness. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity teach us that, indeed, we as humans were created in the fearful image of God. Atheists teach that there is no God, anywhere, and man is the penultimate. Of those, it is my singular belief that there is a God, and in the form of Jesus Christ, he attempted to make us finally aware of this. Now, believing that there is a God, one must believe that he (or it, or she, if you prefer) exists outside of our physical laws. So being, he is not bound by our human and very limited perceptions. Why should he continually attempt to prove to his creations that he created them? A child having never met his mother or father knows that s/he came from something similar, that they didn't just spontaneously appear by chance. What will atheists accept as proof of God's existence? How do you measure this proof? I say the burden of proof is upon the non-believers. Prove to me there is no God. Beyond a reasonable doubt. If our ancestors were so foolish as to put there faith in humanity alone, would we have survived as long as we have? Observe our planet, our galaxy, our universe, and then tell me there is no God. Thankfully, my faith does not require you to believe, but rest assured, before time as we know it has ceased, and the sun has long since collapsed into a black hole, you will know that there is a God,his son is Jesus and he is and was and is all that is to come.
Ben at 4:54PM on Jun 27th 2007
40. Chuck, while I don't know many atheists and can't speak for them, I do know many Christians and will tell you that a true Christian doesen't want you to be more like them, but rather more like Christ. That is something we strive for personally and it something we achieve only with His help. Ipersonally don't want you to be more like me, as I realize my shortcomings and work daily on being less like me and more like Christ.
jon cad at 10:58AM on Jun 28th 2007
41. Doin' crack!
MA\\\'AM aka IWHCA at 6:00PM on Jun 27th 2007
42. You guys are idiots. When you are dead... you are dead. Nothing else... no heaven, no hell. You just can't accept that fact! We were a bunch of monkeys swinging from trees and then an alien bred with the monkey and here we are.
Jihnny 2 Fingers McGoo at 8:38AM on Jun 28th 2007
43. I was disappointed in Mr.Fish. My friends had assured me that Mr.Fish was well worth reading. They have, since the three articles, apologized. Mr. Fish's three articles-are there more coming?-set himself up for a thorough and quite marvellous, logical thrashing by those who commented on them.Mr. Fish's illogic aside,I was especially put off by his precious disclaimers that he really did not have a champion in the theist-atheist encounter. Ish, Mrs.Fish&Dinesh, should you choose to enter the lists again, declare for whom you do battle. It would be an uncontrived, honest and fearless statement, however obvious.
Don Anderson at 6:15PM on Jun 27th 2007
44. As an atheist I find it incomprehensible that most religious persons appear to be oblivious to the fact that the nature of their religion is a direct reflection of WHERE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THEY WERE BORN. Almost EVERY Irish Catholic would be an Iranian Muslim were he or she merely born in Tehran to Muslim parents. And almost EVERY Iranian Muslim would be an Irish Catholic were he or she merely born and raised in Dublin to Irish parents. So how can one believe that their particular flavor of religion is so superior to all others when it exists only as an accident of the location and circumstances of one's birth. Clearly the particular flavor of one's religion has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the preferences of superbeings, rather, it is simply a question of geography and society. The bottom line is that NO large organized religions would exist were indoctrination of the young and malleable strictly prohibited worldwide. And it is reasonable to deduce that we would not miss them.
David at 6:26PM on Jun 27th 2007
45. To Ben
"Atheists teach that there is no God, anywhere, and man is the penultimate. "
No, they do not.
" Now, believing that there is a God, one must believe that he (or it, or she, if you prefer) exists outside of our physical laws."
Then god cannot exist.
"So being, he is not bound by our human and very limited perceptions. Why should he continually attempt to prove to his creations that he created them?"
Because you're begging the question.
" A child having never met his mother or father knows that s/he came from something similar, that they didn't just spontaneously appear by chance."
False analogy and strawman. Further, god couldn't have just spontaneously appeared by chance. Oh--saying god always was thus becomes a special pleading fallacy.
"What will atheists accept as proof of God's existence?"
Evidence.
" How do you measure this proof? "
With evidence.
"I say the burden of proof is upon the non-believers."
You say something that is incorrect.
" Prove to me there is no God."
Don't have to.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt. If our ancestors"
Argument from antiquity fallacy.
" Observe our planet, our galaxy, our universe, and then tell me there is no God."
Argument from awe fallacy.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 6:28PM on Jun 27th 2007