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 2 of 26)
16. Remember, it is NOT a virtue to have MODERATE faith. There is nothing wrong with having strong, unshakable faith which is FUNDAMENTALLY based on the Word of God. This is what Jesus tells us to do, to have STRONG faith. In fact, Jesus tells us that moderate faith is rejected by Him.
"Because you are neither hot, nor cold, I spit you out of My mouth." -- Revelation 3:16
The problem is not being a "fundamental" Christian, believing the Bible. The problem is being a fundamental moderate, neither a true believer (hot and Saved), nor a true non-believer (cold and unSaved). It is the moderates in the middle causing even more confusion between the Saved and unSaved, claiming that you really don't need to believe TOO much, just don't complain too much, either. This is not faith, but self-deception. This is the broad road to destruction that many take, not the narrow gate to life which few take.
The Bible does not teach a moderate faith, it rejects a moderate faith as unworthy.
Rev 3:16 at 8:10AM on Sep 17th 2008
17. More of dimwit's convoluted crap. Just like the rest of his ilk he has absolutely no idea about atheists or atheism.
Geoff Barker at 8:23AM on Sep 17th 2008
18. Rev 3:16, thanks for proving my point before I even made it!
I was going to say that for many of the believers on this blog it's impossible for themselves to see themselves as unbelievers, contrary to Novak's claim. For many of the non-believers, it's not so hard to imagine being a believer.
The point is, Dinesh is wrong as usual.
Ryan Anderson at 8:16AM on Sep 17th 2008
19. To deny the existence of God is to deny the existence of good and evil. The same faith that allows the belief in God also allows the none belief. Both are blind. Atheist do not deny the wind because they see the evidence of it but they do not actually see wind. Christians see the evidence of the existence of God all around us. Christians are called fools and stupid for our belief. While atheist feel so much more intelligent for their non belief. Darkness is the absence of light. One small candle can bring light to a dark room but a box of darkness does not bring darkness to a lighted room. Light will always defeat darkness because of this. Deny God and deny the existence of your soul. If you had no soul then you woul;d never disagree with yourself or in other words you would never have doubts about any action you chose to take. You in effect are your own God if all is right according to you and you alone. I will not call you stupid and a fool and you do me, I will simply call you uninformed.
Semper Fi at 8:18AM on Sep 17th 2008
20. I've been reading Dinesh for a while now. I would like to try to sum up what I feel his position on religion is...
"The god of the bible probably does not exist, but regardless, people who submit to churches are better* people, so everyone should submit to a church"
*easier to control
PS: Semper FI, the wind is measurable and observable.
Ryan Anderson at 8:28AM on Sep 17th 2008
21. "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."
This is a completely absurd statement. Some religious people may indeed 'get' why non-believers are that way (and I'd put them into a small minority if that is truly the case), but to make the claim that all do, or even many, is a flat out lie.
"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."
Read through some more of Dinesh's blogs Jeff Johnston. He not only implies that Christianity is the core of everything 'good', he actually insists that it is. Before Christianity, the world was a dark, horrible place, and after it sprang up, flowers sprouted everywhere and birds started to sing. There were a few bad times in history caused as a direct result of Christianity's influence, but that was at the hands of 'misguided' people. The rest of the bad times were all the Atheists' fault. During modern times, feel free to insert liberals, gays, Muslims, socialists, etc. in place of Atheists. They're all equally evil, and certainly all 'hell-bent' on seeing the world destroyed.
Zatheus at 8:46AM on Sep 17th 2008
22. Ryan,
Only the evidence of wind is measurable and can be observed. Wind itself is invisible. Geoff why is your blind faith any more viable than mine? Every thing the bible teaches is to the benefit of man. If all man kind would simply love one another all of the worlds problems would be solved. How can you argue with that? This is the teaching of Christ and not God's relationship with his people in the old testament. The old testament gives us insight but we are to live by the New Testament today. To realize that you know few absolutes is the beginning of wisdom. I am a dimwit in your opinion because I cannot see a blind faith that you believe in 100%? What does that make you my friend?
Semper Fi at 8:49AM on Sep 17th 2008
23. "The same faith that allows the belief in God also allows the none belief. Both are blind."
Gonna have to disagree with you. My non-belief in supernatural deities is not 'blind', it's based on a complete and total lack of evidence proving the existence of any so-called 'gods'. Non-belief has no prerequisites. Belief in 'God' ultimately requires leaps of faith, which IS blind.
And most of the religious people that get bashed (on these blogs specifically), are the ones that are well deserving of it. People like Man_In_Wilderness, who doesn't just limit his attacks on the non-religious, he will openly attack and ridicule people that share his own core belief system if they dare to disagree with him. Nobody should have to 'tolerate' someone who makes it a point to be as intolerant as they possibly can be on purpose.
Zatheus at 9:16AM on Sep 17th 2008
24. "If all man kind would simply love one another all of the worlds problems would be solved. How can you argue with that?"
First of all, all of the world's problems wouldn't magically disappear, but I would certainly agree that the world would overall be a far better place if everyone would at least learn to respect one another, despite different belief systems.
Tell me this though, why is it that the so-called 'followers of Jesus' are usually the ones that are the most divisive? It just seems that the loudest voices in the religious community are usually the ones that are preaching AGAINST unity, not for it. The fact that many of those preachers have a pretty large following just serves to reenforce the idea that the Jesus cult is filled with people that will only accept unity if it's done solely on their terms. That's never going to get us anywhere, and you know it.
Zatheus at 9:26AM on Sep 17th 2008
25. "The problem is not being a "fundamental" Christian, believing the Bible. The problem is being a fundamental moderate, neither a true believer (hot and Saved), nor a true non-believer (cold and unSaved). It is the moderates in the middle causing... blah blah blah blah..."
And the problem with YOU is that you've already decided that you're 'saved', without even waiting for the judgement of the God you claim to hold in such high reverence. Talk about arrogant. You're a shining example of just what I pointed out in my last post. Unconditional surrender of your 'opponents' is the only terms that you'll agree to. How loving and compassionate. I'm just tingling all over.
Zatheus at 9:38AM on Sep 17th 2008
26. Semper Fi; "wind" is caused by the uneven heating and cooling of the earth by the sun. Wind is currents in the earth's atmosphere flowing due to this uneven heating and cooling. The earth's atmosphere is measurable and observable. Also, it is not "invisible". You can see the atmosphere, which is air, which is what wind is.
Bad example.
Also, if you aren't a communist, you don't live by the new testament (see Acts).
Ryan Anderson at 9:53AM on Sep 17th 2008
27. "I have NEVER met a religious person that can imagine being an unbeliever."
Hi Jude. Now you can say you met one. I was an Atheist born and raised. Now I'm not.
"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."
Certainly most believers will say this, and you don't have a disagreement with me. These are people that simply "believe". They don't know. Questioning Religious teachings is a good thing in my opinion. With an open mind, you can see how man made religious institutions have screwed up the message. Jesus Christ shows how to question, and teaches us how to understand. Unfortunately, Institutions don't convey it, and the followers just don't know.
Jesus warns of the Open Gate versus the Narrow Gate. You don't think he's talking solely about Atheists do you? No, no, no. He's mainly talking about Christians who fall into false teaching.
"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?"
They mostly come from various Religions and became convinced that they were learning foolishness. They were being conned. I have to admit, I agree with them. But they shouldn't have stopped there. You shouldn't have stopped there. There was a correct message, that would have given you the correct Knowledge and correct teaching where you could have enabled yourself the opportunity to make an informed decision.
"We came from religious homes, taught from earliest childhood that God existed."
The majority of us. I wasn't taught that.
"We believed. So don't tell me atheists don't get what it feels like."
They get what it feels like to be Institutionalized.
"Being religious is what makes someone a poor analyst of religion."
Only if it's institutionalized.
"Being religious is what causes people to be "non-critical" thinkers."
In institutionalized religion, this is correct. Jesus Christ taught us to be critical thinkers, because he foresaw that in the future, man would try to take advantage of his message and use for their gain, not His or yours.
"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.""
With institutionalized religious followers, this is true in most cases. I love Science, and find it fascinating. It's amazing how God works.
"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."
I completely agree with you. And the Bible says the exact same thing as well. Keep it personal, and let the message of Love help you live a great life and be a great influence of others.
"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."
This is the problem with Institutionalized Religion.
Botts at 9:58AM on Sep 17th 2008
28. As an agnostic, the biggest problem I have is with a Christian's version of what it means to be tolarent of them. For them, it means that my children must be taught Christian thought in the guiles of "intelligent design" (another way to say creationisum) in our public schools. It means that every public event I go to, I must listen to a prayer. I have no problem with them doing whatever they want in their churches, homes, private schools and private events. Just leave it our of the "public square".
Teri M at 10:02AM on Sep 17th 2008
29. Semper Fi,
Everything the bible teaches is to the benefit of man? Seriously? Including the consistent violence and prejudice? Or do you choose to ignore or rationalize those verses that don't fit such an interpretation.
And you're not a dimwit for anyone elses faith but your own. At least in my estimation it's the fact that you're so blind you can't see that your precious bible is no different than the thousands of other religious writings through out the ages. Written by man. I find it dimwitted that your view is so narrow you can't even rationally view religion and its history for what it is. See, the evolution of our big brains that allowed planning long in advance also cursed us with the knowledge of knowing we're going to die. It cursed us with an existential dread we do everything to avoid by making fictions to ease our worries. Totems and superstitions to salve us. We also have the unfortunate ability to ignore rational thought to find that peace. We have the ability, granted by those big brains, to ignore the fact that tens of thousands of other religions have existed yet the one we believe in is somehow right and the rest are wrong. Parsimony tells us none can be right. You see, you walk into a church and see all the statues and stained glass as beautiful depictions of your faith. I see charcoal buffalos scratched on the wall of a cave. I see something that ties us to our basest ignorance.
healyartroom at 10:02AM on Sep 17th 2008
30. Great Blog Dinesh; thoughtful and well written!
Jude.
I was once an agnostic. I spent many years away from any religious practice. What brought me back was a personal encounter with the living God. For me that is Jesus Christ. Faith is always personal which is why it is difficult to convey to atheists. I accept that there are atheists. I respect the right not to believe in God, but I am saddened by disbelief. To believe is an amazing gift and many have believed, even unto death and not just Christians. I once read a story about a famous Rabbi in Poland. This man and all his students were gassed at Auschwitz. As he went to his death he said to all, "out of these flames and ashes, there will be a rebirth of the nation of Israel"! Oh, what incredible faith in the midst of what must have appeared to be compete abandonment by God. He was right. Out of the ashes, there has been a rebirth and the Jewish people live. Faith is knowledge that God is real and in control. It is assurance that good will always conquer evil. It is knowledge that there is a divine plan; that nothing happens by chance. It is trust in ancient words and promises. I believe. I praise God for my belief. I ask him to strengthen my belief and to shower grace on those waiting for that moment of revelation. God bless!
janesophie1 at 10:09AM on Sep 17th 2008