Even if God's existence could be proven, Niezsche writes in The Antichrist, we would still refuse to accept him. When I read atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, I don't get the impression that they are motivagted by mere unbelief. I don't believe in unicorns, but I don't go around writing books full of rejection and bile about unicorns. When I read The God Delusion and God Is Not Great, I see that their authors do not so much disbelieve in God as they hate Him.
Consequently, the arguments spelled out in these atheist books are out of sync with the actual vehemence of their authors.
Enter the French atheist Michel Onfray, whose Atheist Manifesto is a bestseller in Europe. Onfray comes out of a different tradition than Dawkins and Hitchens, one that he describes as stretching from the Baron d'Holbach to Nietzsche. This is Continental atheism, and it makes its case against God in an entirely different way than do the Anglo-Saxon atheists we encounter in the United States. Onfray, like Nietzsche, regards Anglo-Saxon atheists like Dawkins as representing a low, brutish type, widely found in England.
These themes will be developed in my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity. But here's one key difference between Anglo-Saxon atheism and Continental atheism. While Dawkins and Hitchens insist that we can be moral without God, Onfray with astonishing frankness concedes Nietzsche's point that the death of God also means the death of Western morality and Western values. So if God goes, that means that "equality" and "rights" go too. This is a possibility that Dawkins and Hitchens have not even considered. In many ways I think Onfray's atheism is more honest, more darkly appealing, and more dangerous than the atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens. My review of Onfray's book appears on the religious website Tothesource and you can read it here.
Reader Comments ( Page 109 of 110)
1621. What's the matter with you, Michelle...
... meaningless drivel.
pboyfloyd at 10:58PM on Sep 14th 2007
1622. Lee Strobel is only one of the main apologists of our time. He wrote the The Case for... series. The Case for Christ. The Case for Faith.... And recently they came out with the archeological study Bible. Interesting peace of business. Full of historical Bible stuff. Things they have found.
Michelle at 11:01PM on Sep 14th 2007
1623. 1616 - ? I am merely asking simple questions? Does that insult your brain?
Michelle at 11:03PM on Sep 14th 2007
1624. I'm not trying to 'get' religion, Michelle..
... there is nothing new that an apologist...major or otherwise could tell me... it would just be the same old drivel wrapped up in a different package...
...of course the guy makes sense to you... that is hardly surprising.
pboyfloyd at 11:06PM on Sep 14th 2007
1625. Pboyfloyd, most people make sense to me. But I know what you mean about drivel in different packs. Once you get old enough though, everything is like that. Every person, every store, every preacher. Just tidbits of difference.
Michelle at 11:12PM on Sep 14th 2007
1626. Plus you seem to be trying to tell me that a religious archeologist found some religious archeological sites in arguably the most religious place on the planet...
... well you could knock me over with a feather...
pboyfloyd at 11:16PM on Sep 14th 2007
1627. Yeah, religious, but what about if they found something that proves Godson?
Michelle at 11:24PM on Sep 14th 2007
1628. Oy, ok I admit that would probably be kind of big news. But surely something could hint to something important maybe. I guess I will have to get the thing, and some other stuff. Study up more. Then I'll get ya. Then I will. Youll see. You will. he he he.
Michelle at 11:36PM on Sep 14th 2007
1629. Yea, yea.. what if.. what if...
... you are under some kind of delusion that that is possible.
When I asked what the point of God was... the male, female thingy would be a CONSTRUCT of HIS, right?... so... what is the point really?... the point of God...
... don't say it's us in a shady way.
pboyfloyd at 11:38PM on Sep 14th 2007
1630. Um how many points do I get if I answer right?
What is to please Himself?
Michelle at 11:47PM on Sep 14th 2007
1631. Is that right.. to please HIMself? So it is all just a game then? A silly game...
pboyfloyd at 11:53PM on Sep 14th 2007
1632. The way I see it, Pboy, and this is theory, somewhat educated theory, God came about somehow, perhaps evolving from the specticals, and then he made everything else. Here's yet another thought, the ants, why dont they wise up and become bigger or something before dying? And another: How come the dna in humans always causes them to become humans? What is it that keeps this order going?
Michelle at 12:01AM on Sep 15th 2007
1633. To please HIMself... a silly game...
... quick... change the subject...
... what about 'order' then pboyfloyd... huh.. what about that then????
... yes, Michelle... it's all a silly GOD game... that makes sense, doesn't it?
pboyfloyd at 12:05AM on Sep 15th 2007
1634. Now Pboyfloyd,
I have a proposition, we have talked a lot here, and probably (maybe because of me) most of it has been off subject. Now it relates to the subject, but I admit, it doesnt prove the point. Thats sort of a dead issue. You dont seem to hate God. And athiest by definition means you dont even believe in God. How can you hate something you dont believe in. So down to brass tackets and propositions, my thots,
Either we should move the convo elsewhere via emails or something or I should get more creative and find better ways for my topics to match subject. What do you think, Pboy?
Michelle at 12:13AM on Sep 15th 2007
1635. MIchelle... I'm sorry if you imagined that I was anything more than type on your monitor. Hey, when DD comes up with the next, "God is great... and atheists are demons.", deal....
... but I'm not looking for a friendship like that...if you see what I mean... if I were, I'd be talking on a chatline... discussing personal details etc.
pboyfloyd at 12:22AM on Sep 15th 2007