For a couple of years it seemed like the new atheists were going largely unanswered. But now there are several good books rebutting their claims, among them John Lennox's God's Undertaker and Tim Keller's The Reason for God. The latest addition to this literature is Michael Novak's new book No One Sees God. It is a wise and important book.
Novak is a friend of mine and a former colleague at the American Enterprise Institute. He is known for his books celebrating the morality of free markets, notably The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. As a theologian who has written on subjects from Aquinas to existentialism, Novak is well equipped to consider the metaphysical claims of the new atheists.
One of Novak's especially attractive qualities is his ability to find common ground with his opponents. Here he begins by conceding to the atheist that "we are all in the same darkness." No one-not even Moses or Abraham-has set his eyes on God. Novak rejects the certitudes of both the religious fundamentalist and the militant atheist. He intends to explore what he calls "the dark and windswept open spaces between unbelief and belief."
For Novak, life raises bigger questions than the ones answered, and answerable, by science. Ultimately we want to know not merely how things work but also: why are we here? What is our purpose? What is our final destiny? Novak credits religion with addressing the largest moral questions, not only "what is it good to do?" but also "what is it good to be?" and "what is it good to love?"
Novak expresses admiration for some of the leading atheists, notably Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. (He seems less enamored with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.) Modern atheism has its virtues, such as an emphasis on truth over good feelings, and also on honesty and courage in facing the realities of life. Even so, Novak finds it puzzling that these atheists make so little effort to understand how God is experienced by the believer.
"For a believer," Novak writes, "It does not take a prolonged thought experiment to imagine oneself an unbeliever." The believer knows full well where the atheist is coming from. By contrast, Novak suggests, atheists like Hitchens seem to have no empathetic understanding whatsoever of genuine religious conviction. They have no sense of what belief must be like from within.
Novak's point is that this shortcoming makes them poor analysts of religion. All critical reading requires a certain measure of suspended belief. This is as true of the strange but captivating world of Dostoyevsky as it is of Shakespeare's moral universe. When we read Macbeth, for instance, we have to be able to plunge into Shakespeare's world, ghosts and all. No understanding of Macbeth is possible if we begin with rude dismissal, "Of course the whole premise is complete nonsense."
Novak is surprised to discover that in the entire literature of the new atheism "there is not a shred of evidence that the authors have ever had any doubts whatever about the rightness of their own atheism." This is not simply a matter of refusing to apply the vaunted virtue of skepticism to one's own philosophy. It is also a matter of giving an account of why such a tiny minority of people in our culture have embraced vocal atheism. If atheism is so obviously convincing, Novak asks, why are so few people drawn to it? The new atheists offer no answers; indeed, scarcely any of them even raise the question.
Novak likens Hitchens to Thomas Paine, that fiery pamphleteer and partisan of the American Revolution. Novak notes, however, that despite his hostility to Christianity, Paine understood that such concepts as the dignity of man and human rights depended on man's special place in God's creation. Indeed the Jacobins of the French Revolution imprisoned Paine after he warned them that their atheism would undercut the basis of their declaration of human rights. Hitchens seems blissfully unaware of a whole tradition of scholarship, from Tocqueville to Jurgen Habermas, that identifies Christianity as the essential foundation of some of the West's most cherished institutions and values.
In a 2005 lecture in on "Religion in the Public Sphere," Habermas raises a question that is central to Novak's inquiry. Habermas shows that the very idea of toleration is a gift that religious thought has bequeathed to modern secular society. Then he asks: are secular people willing to acknowledge that toleration is always a two-way street? In other words, if religious people are expected to be tolerant of unbelievers, shouldn't secular people learn to be tolerant of their fellow citizens who are believers?
This argument has important implications. If Habermas and Novak are right, the public square should not be viewed as the property of secular citizens. Rather, it is the common ground on which believers and non-believers communicate with each other. It makes no sense to exclude religious convictions from the public sphere if secular convictions are granted full access. An uncritical "separation of church and state" must give way to a shared domain in which all citizens have the right to express their heartfelt convictions.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 26)
1. In other words, if religious people are expected to be tolerant of unbelievers, shouldn't secular people learn to be tolerant of their fellow citizens who are believers?
xx
first, religious people are not tolerant of unbelievers. They kill one another over hiccups in dogma and it has been ever so.
As to people who aren't interested in others' superstitions, they aren't any of our business until you make them so.
Stay out of government and soft pedal the proselytizing and I don't see any problem, or at least I never did.
Until dominionists decided that a kingdom of their preacher starring as god on earth was a better idea than the past couple hundred years of Rule of Law it wasn't on my radar, at least.
I don't care what you think as long as you don't try to ram it down my throat.
Clif Kuplen at 1:17AM on Sep 17th 2008
2. I see that Novak is borrowing from the ideology that if some one was once a person of faith, and then strays, then that person's faith was some how false or lacking to begin with. The idea that an atheist or agnostic doesn't understand the believer is as trite as the believer stating the inverse. We are all individuals. I don't know what it's like to be a man, but I sympathize with male friends and family and find what emotional common ground that I can. Likewise I may not be a believer now, but I was in the past, and I still remember the thoughts and feelings I held while I believed.
Denish claims that it is impossible to understand fiction without truly submerging one's self in it. However, to claim that one must revert one's mind to Elizabethan mentalities in order to appriciate Shakespeare is rediculous. Most to the point, it overlooks the fact that MacBeth is ficition. We know it today. They knew it back then. And yes, many thought that magic was real back then too just as many today think God is real. Today, the number of people who believe in magic today is far diminished; who knows how many people will choose to believe in God in years and generations to come?
Now Dinesh claims christianity is the origin of such institutions as community, charity, and compassion. In doing so he blissfully ignores the fact that such ideals existed also in non-christian civilizations. Even primitive tribes living in the Amazon, without christianity, possess compassion and community. Christianity simply assumes credit because it's the oldest western european social tradition remaining. No doubt if romans still existed (and if you go to Italy you can find some) they would attest and argue that it was Rome that introduced these concepts. As religion wanes, so to does its credibility.
The title of this piece is 'no one talks to God.' I have to agree. No one talks to God, because there is no God to converse with. Only the hollow, empty echo of our wants, desires, and fantasies returning to our ears.
Somber at 1:22AM on Sep 17th 2008
3.
The believer knows full well where the atheist is coming from. By contrast, Novak suggests, atheists like Hitchens seem to have no empathetic understanding whatsoever of genuine religious conviction.
*******
I don't think that is necessarily true. Many "believers" have the blinders on towards practically anything that doesn't fit into their dogmatic view of the universe. They don't see anything, God or otherwise. They're certainly not empathetic and may be downright belligerent. Plus, they view the atheist as lost and in need of "saving." It's not about where they are coming from, but more "look out where you're going to if you don't believe exactly as I do." That can piss off anyone - even the Pope.
torquemada at 1:52AM on Sep 17th 2008
4. Somber - You stated that Dinesh implied in his blog that Christianity was the origin of such institutions as community, charity, and compassion. I think you will see upon reading it once again that what he said - in context - was that Christianity was identified as the foundation of many of the WEST'S most cherished INSTITUTIONS and VALUES.
Jeff Johnston at 2:17AM on Sep 17th 2008
5. ATHEIST
Reply to: Even so, Novak finds it puzzling that these atheists make so little effort to understand how God is experienced by the believer.
_________________
More dimwit Nonsense from Dinesh.
Everyone starts life as an infant. They don't know what their parents are, but they accumulate memories.
When they grow up, they don't remember it all consciously. But a con man can access those memories and say "There's an invisible and powerful entity that loves you."
Dinesh's problem is, he's a dimwit. He's quite convinced that he's intelligent, and he is NOT.
He's the victim of a CON GAME... and when anyone meets or talks to a Catholic priest, they should instantly be able to figure out that something is seriously wrong with them.
William Hays at 2:32AM on Sep 17th 2008
6. ATHEIST
Reply to: Jurgen Habermas raises a question that is central to Novak's inquiry. Habermas shows that the very idea of toleration is a gift that religious thought has bequeathed to modern secular society. Then he asks: are secular people willing to acknowledge that toleration is always a two-way street?
In other words, if religious people are expected to be tolerant of unbelievers, shouldn't secular people learn to be tolerant of their fellow citizens who are believers?
__________________
I've never met a Christian who was "tolerant" of unbelievers. Even if I did, it wouldn't matter.
it's like asking a child molester how he feels about people who score the SAT tests.
Christians are the VICTIMS of a con game. Christianity seeks out stupid people.
Atheists are NOT tolerant of STUPIDITY or DECEIT.
christianity is a LIE. God is a LIE.
why should I tolerate a LIE?
Grow up. You're asking Atheists if they will, please, turn off their brains and be nice to you.
NOT... A .... CHANGE.
Catholics like Dinesh should STOP BEING STUPID.
That's the correct Answer.
William Hays at 2:37AM on Sep 17th 2008
7. was that Christianity was identified as the foundation of many of the WEST'S most cherished INSTITUTIONS and VALUES.
xxx
there's the operative 'was identified'. By whom? more christians? Most of our 'cherished values' are far older than christianity. Gonesh has the scientific literacy of a grade schooler. Our values evolved over eons and through speciation. He is apparently mentally incapable of grasping that since he never does and trots out the same silliness blog after blog. It's no wonder AOL has had enough. He's too lacking in curiosity to produce anything interesting. It's time we shut this down.
Clif Kuplen at 3:04AM on Sep 17th 2008
8.
Once religion makes it's way into the public sphere, you can't get it out. They claim ownership in god's name. Cockroaches are easier to get rid of. The seperation of church and state wasn't something just thrown in to fill up space - it was well thought out. Dineshs' hero Calvin was a prime example of what happens when the two mix.
ex-christian at 3:09AM on Sep 17th 2008
9. god, germs and santa claus - everything people talk about around here you can't even see!
Clif Kuplen at 3:20AM on Sep 17th 2008
10.
It makes no sense to exclude religious convictions from the public sphere if secular convictions are granted full access. An uncritical "separation of church and state" must give way to a shared domain in which all citizens have the right to express their heartfelt convictions.
-----------
Secular convictions require that standards be societally objective. Religious convictions are absolutes defined by dogma. There is no way to mix the two. Where secularism demands that no specific dogma be placed above any other, religious conviction demands one specific view, and no other.
Where a secular person sees just another person, a religious person sees a crime against an authority greater than law. When an authority is greater than law, the law becomes secondary, and irrelevant as the authority must be gratified without any other consideration whatsoever.
That's one of the biggest reasons for the seperation of church and state. It's why I come here. It must stand. expression and imposition by higher authority are vastly different.
ex-christian at 6:04AM on Sep 17th 2008
11. "For a believer, It does not take a prolonged thought experiment to imagine oneself an unbeliever.
The believer knows full well where the atheist is coming from. By contrast, Novak suggests that atheists like Hitchens seem to have no empathetic understanding whatsoever of genuine religious conviction. They have no sense of what belief must be like from within. Novak's point is that this shortcoming makes them poor analysts of religion. All critical reading requires a certain measure of suspended belief."
I have NEVER met a religious person that can imagine being an unbeliever. Not one. The mere thought of "not believing" is considered sinful in itself, questioning God, showing a lack of pure faith, that you must believe. That is the whole basis of religion! Religious people like to point out that something like 90% (not sure of the exact number) of the US population believes in God. So where did all these atheists come from? We came from religious homes, taught from earliest childhood that God existed. We believed. So don't tell me atheists don't get what it feels like. Being religious is what makes someone a poor analyst of religion. Being religious is what causes people to be "non-critical" thinkers. Religion is what propels people to push away scientific facts and study of things which may call their beliefs into question. More and more, DD's blogs sound so 1984-ish. Double speak. Ministry of Truth. Just like our president with his "blue skies initiative." A separation of church and state is just that, Dinesh. No one cares what you or anyone else believes about God. Practice however you wish. Don't force me to be a part of it by thrusting it into the public, or political arenas. And Sarah Palin...her VP agenda includes childhood diseases, illnesses, birth defects, etc. But she will fight tooth and nail against any and every possible cure if it involves stem cells. Her religion won't allow her to really go for a solution, in spite of the fact that many other religious and non religious people do not share her belief.
Jude at 6:16AM on Sep 17th 2008
12. And Jeff, if you read my response carefully, you would see that all cultures value compassion and charity. Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythologies have many examples where kindness are rewarded. But there aren't any ancient egyptians or mesopotamians around to claim credit, now are there? Christianity is the oldest game in the west, so its proponents tout it was the source of emotions that are fundamental in all societies because it is linked to our biology.
Now, on the subject of tolerance. Religous and secular discourse are only tolerant, and can ever be tolerant, when the religious side is stripped of political power. Period. When political power is linked to theological dogma it is impossible for religious interests not to abuse that power. Think of the rise of the renisance and the wane of the authority of the catholic church. It was only when the church lost the ability to direct secular leaders to act that it became a more spiritual and compassionate organization. As it lost political power, opposition groups (the protestants faiths) were able to express differing interpretations of the bible. Had the Vatican retained its ability to direct and manipulate countries these splinters would have been stamped out as heretics; but it couldn't.
This trend seems pretty constant in all cultures. Aztecs had an entrenched priest caste with an agenda and dogma that maintained their worldly power. Try to argue religion with an Aztec and you'd find your heart carved from your chest. But it's the same with theocratic regimes like Iran. For the priest class to maintain power it has to use that power. Power unused is lost. And so it is impossible for Islam in Iran to be truly tolerant because it can not tolerate discourse that undermines its authority.
It is only in places like Europe and America, where religious has the majority of its teeth pulled, that religion HAS to be tolerant. Would Americans tolerate a bloody purge of homosexuals by a baptist crusade? Of course not. Secular law, which must by definition regard all faiths as equal and therefore moot, would move to stop it. Not because christianity is wrong and secular power is right but because we recognize that if one religion were to have such power it could just as easily turn it against another group it dislikes according to its dogma.
And since no one talks to God, there is no one to contradict that dogma.
Somber at 7:06AM on Sep 17th 2008
13. Dinny, Seperation of Church and State has NEVER stopped any one from talking about god. It goes on all the time even in Schools (wow). We have wondeful blogs like yours full of how religion is the best and only way to go. NO ONE STOPS YOU. and you aren't even that great a writter. Give it up Dinny, find a better editor or just pick a better topic that some one has researched for you.
emanon at 8:03AM on Sep 17th 2008
14. The public sphere is no place for religion. By public sphere, I mean government. Somber is right, when religion gets power, it legislates that power into a form that is sympathetic to its doctrine. When the Catholic Church had power, what did it do with it?
One of the greatest freedoms we have is religous freedom. What that means is that you have the freedom to believe whatever the hell you want, and practise that religion however you choose(within reason). This freedom guaranteed that no one religion would be able to dictate dogma to anyone at anytime.
Why would we want to change that now.
As far as the main topic. If athiests are the minority and believers are the majority, then why is it up to the athiests to be tolerant? Believers are all the time telling athiests that they are going to hell and jesus is king.(if you believe that the form of government of the us- the republican form of government- is the best form of government, then how can you believe that the kingdom of heaven is a monarchy. Obviously if heaven is a monarchy, then that is the best form of government. That is introducing democracy into the kingdom of heaven)
Pope Cack IV at 8:06AM on Sep 17th 2008
15. This post actually offers some fine ideas, not least among the notion from Habermas that certain religions (not just Judeo-Christianity) espouse notions of tolerance and equality. But there are a few places where Dinesh glosses things a bit too easily, to wit:
1. The willing suspension of disbelief might be easier with Shakespeare, who never lays claim to historical or cosmic reality with his plays. The issue with religion, or at least its interpretation by many practitioners in the US, is its singular emphasis on the Truth--and often a simplistic version thereof.
2. Pursuant to 1, most Christians are neither simple nor intolerant, but their cause is too often given voice in the media by people who are exactly those things. It's difficult, from the atheist side, to profess a tolerance for people whose single goal seems to involve forcing everyone else to think and talk as they do.
3. Most people in this country, from Atheist to Christian, get along just fine on a personal basis. It's muckraking "thinkers" like D'Souza and politicians (some on the left, more on the right) who want to convince that there's a problem with the other side being inherently evil. It's fear-mongering and prejudice at its most basic, and it precludes the discussion of "finer" points like the issue of what various philosophies and theologies have contributed to our lives, both public and private. In the end, Dinesh's article is not about finding common ground. It's another installment in his diatribe about why non-Christians (not just Atheists, but anyone who does not "believe" the right way) cannot be trusted. Folks who can't see through this facade deserve the kind of leaders, and country, they get.
I could go on. But that's enough for one post.
Ben at 8:08AM on Sep 17th 2008