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 26 of 26)
376. Ryan, thank you for all the civil discussions we've had over the past, what, six months? If you ever get the chance there's a message board I frequent called Into The Wardrobe (a C.S. Lewis web site) where I post under the name Kolbitar (I usually post in the forum called Religion, Science, and Philosophy). Here's a link: http://cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/
I’d like to leave off with one last thought. The atheist philosopher Sartre recalls the childhood experience of God-as-conscience when he did something he knew was wrong yet wanted to do; he felt he was in the presence of a being who disapproved, and he chased away that disapproval by repeating “God damn it” over and over till it vanished, till he was “free” from it. Likewise, but with the opposite outcome, Augustine, in his Confessions, recalls a moment of crisis when he was faced with the shame of not choosing to convert; something in him wanted to convert, but something else wanted to remain enslaved to lust and other lower passions. He recounts, very vividly, pulling out his hair, banging his head against the wall, and rocking back and forth while this battle raged within him. Finally, he gave himself over to God, let God work within him, and became a holy man freed from bondage.
Peace to you,
Jesse
Jesse at 7:39PM on Sep 25th 2008
377. Jesse;
#374 - I guess I missed your question, sorry about that. I wasn't dodging out of an unwillingness to face it. You should know I've been very open to "Jesus" for a large portion of my life, I was a christian for many years. But to answer what now realize your question is, there is nothing "moral" that I am doing/not doign today that I would do/not do if I somehow tricked myself into believing in Christianity again. I live a very moral and moderate life, and I enjoy every minute of it. I've been through dark times, but that was long after I "lost my faith" and I came through wonderfully under my own power with the help of friends and family.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think "someone like me" would have do/not do to start living a life worthy of whatever standard it is that christians hold at this period in history?
#375 - I don't much go for either-or's. They are generally not the whole story. I agree that we imagine purpose and worth and it's a reflection of our ego. But I think we also recognize what you would consider "absolute purpose and worth", but it's merely a reflection of everyone elses ego (society).
#376 - I've very much enjoyed our discussions and thank you for your patience. I've had my fill of Lewis over the years, but I will check in at your soberinebriation blog from time to time. As for Sartre and Augustine, I think you (we, actually) are chasing something wonderful and worthwhile. I just don't think it's "God".
Peace to you as well.
Ryan Anderson at 8:28PM on Sep 25th 2008
378. ::Just out of curiosity, what do you think "someone like me" would have do/not do to start living a life worthy of whatever standard it is that christians hold at this period in history?
Hey Ryan. Act like you believe; it's a matter of will. The difference is Hope -- for others.
Reinhold Schneider, a Catholic, wrote "You have to pray, even if you cannot. I can certainly pray for others, for priests, scientists, statesmen, the people, creatures, the earth; for the sick first of all, it goes without saying, and for the dead, which is the silent confirmation of a mysterious connection. I have a deep need to do this; it gives me support and calls me to church in the morning; but for myself I cannot pray." It's almost as if he's saying, I don't believe for myself, but for others. Now, I'd respond that believing for yourself is completing your belief on behalf of others; still, I find it virtuous and manly none the less.
Take care,
Jesse
Jesse at 5:00AM on Sep 26th 2008
379. Jesse: "Act like you believe..."
I did this for several years in the 90's after I lost my faith but before I accepted it. And believe it or not, I recently considered doing this when my baby girl was born. After all my parents acted like they believed. But I finally came to my senses and realized it would be utter dishonesty to my girl. It's better for her to know exactly what I believe and for us to help her find her own path rather than guide her down the path of our choosing.
Peace.
Ryan Anderson at 7:04AM on Sep 26th 2008
380. Hey Ryan. I'm home taking care of my wife who just had surgery on her jaw, so I have some time on my hands and would like to make one last presentation of Christianity in the light of some general misunderstandings I've encountered here and elsewhere.
1. Christianity is existential, it appeals to our will, and is thus anchored to human nature; it is not a test to which we have to give the right answer if we just happened to be lucky enough to find it.
"[Christianity]... is addressed only to penitents, only to those who admit their disobedience to the known moral law… [i]t offers forgiveness for having broken, and supernatural help towards keeping, that law." --Lewis
When someone says that they cannot believe in Christianity they often seem to presuppose that Christianity is primarily an assent to propositions put before the intellect, so that the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Incarnation and the like (which in themselves cannot be understood by our intellect) almost axiomatically lack any compelling force and appeal whatsoever in terms of moving one to make the choice to believe. This lack of appeal is to be expected given this understanding, for clearly a bunch of static propositions which are inherently beyond comprehension, detached from the only motive to which Christianity finds them directly related, is going to be less than even mildly appealing. Christianity, however, begins by relating not to a detached intellect, but to an ailing will. It offers medicine to the will, so that the will must begin to partake in order to heal and find itself healing.
Aldous Huxley, himself not a Christian, once wrote, "In traditional Christianity…it was axiomatic that contemplation is the end and purpose of action." Now, by "contemplation" is meant the last stage of faith, union with God even here on Earth, a union so potentially close that, as Brother Lawrence noted, "faith becomes so penetrating… it could almost say, "I no longer believe; I see and I experience." This is the happiness which our ailing wills seek, the goal or purpose for which rational beings are made; the lack of this happiness is the symptom of our need for a savior. Jesus Christ claimed to be the shape of our need, the bridge to happiness, the Savior of man. Therefore faith does not begin in empty intellectual propositions, but is personal trust stemming from a very real human need; a need which is the rock bottom condition of man when all his false objects of happiness are stripped away: a need to which the voice of history answers by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate. That leads me to the second point I'd like to make.
2. God is not just another thing or object, but is both the source and goal of all things and objects (remember what you said about "chasing something wonderful"?).
Any "thing" is a limitation of existence; Joseph Conti, quoting W.N. Clarke, tells us to think about the fact of existence that it exists in different ways; existence can be horsey, or evergreeny, or elmy, or sparrowy, or… you name it. The way things exist is called their “essence.” So things exist in different ways, they are limited existences, or existence limited. We know that a horse is not a bird, and that neither are human beings; we know that existence is limited, here, to a horse essence, a bird essence, and a human essence. But is there something that is pure existence without limitation? In other words, is there a being whose essence is existence? Well, taking what we know is common to each and every thing, namely, existence, we can investigate its properties and come to the grandest, most noble conclusion of human reason: God, the being whose essence is existence, exists! Or, as was revealed to Moses, I AM WHO AM (the being whose essence is existence), actually is. But more than a conclusion of reason, more than, as Huxley said, being "content to know about the unmoving mover from the outside and theoretically," the goal and purpose of life is to come to know God "directly", unitively".
3. God is the objective ground of goodness and worth, which our ideas reflect and thus give to our minds that relation called truth.
"God, to be God, must transcend what is. He must be the maker of what ought to be." - Rufus M. Jones
Given number two, that we are, so to speak, invariably attracted to God, that he is what our will strives for as the object of happiness, as THE end in itself for all human beings -- and all creation --, it's quite easy to see that by the phrase "maker of what ought to be," Jones means the cause or reason (in the sense of final cause) for the path, which includes the intertwining paths of all other human beings, which we ought to take in order to achieve our end. This means, to put it bluntly, that because there is a goal which we seek strictly for itself, and since the path to this goal implicitly involves doing what we can to help others reach it as well, therefore we're able to combine a prescriptive statement (we necessarily seek happiness) with a descriptive statement ((God as the object of happiness) IS) to conclude that we ought to seek God by loving Him, and by loving our neighbors as ourselves (i.e., your perception of your daughters worth is not just a projection from your own mind, it is a perception which everyone ought to respect -- it is real!). The Christian claim closes the deal, insisting that only Jesus, who is this goal Incarnated in human flesh, can help us achieve such a love.
Bye Ryan,
Jesse
Jesse at 12:00PM on Sep 26th 2008
381. Jesse; take care of yourself, I hope your wife is ok.
One of the sins I haven't killed is the need for the last word :)...
So I'll say I agree that animals have a spiritual component, and that Christianity is one means that many people successfully employ to hone that component, much like others use Islam or running marathons. Many people also fail miserably to use religion to hone their spirit, and so we have things like 9/11, Crusades, Witch hunts or the Holocaust.
When I say I "don't believe" christianity, I don't believe the mythology. I believe what it can do for people. It's just not the only means to the end. The red lettered words in the gospels, for the most part, contain a lot of wisdom. As do many of the stories from the Old Testament. It's not wisdom unique to christianity, but wisdom none the less. Much of it is outdated and irrelevant junk too though, designed as a social guide for pastoral desert folk. Another irrelevant and outdated part is the claim that christiantiy is the "only way". That is nothing more than a political control used to keep order over the divergent sects and over other cults altogether.
Take care.
Ryan Anderson at 12:41PM on Sep 26th 2008
382. Neener, neener, neener!
I got the last word, Ryan.
GearHedEd at 5:59PM on Sep 30th 2008
383. No one sees god?
I just did, he was on T.V. He appeared in a piece of toast in Mexico City !
mac at 9:51PM on Oct 1st 2008
384. No Ed, The last word is mine ;-)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
mac at 2:54PM on Nov 26th 2008
385. Hi Gang...
Man_in_Wilderness at 4:00PM on Mar 11th 2009
386. Mac... we see by faith.
Man_in_Wilderness at 4:01PM on Mar 11th 2009
387. Unbelievers are right in most of their thinking
You might be one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right: myths and a religious fantasy have influenced human minds with larger strength than reality, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, opt for the status quo, or become marginalized.
Bishop John Shelby Spong says that “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence! Eminent philosophers and thinkers might give you an idea if this book might be an insightful reading for you (links below). You may look also at excerpts at Amazon.com.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
Jairo Mejia at 4:58PM on Jul 24th 2009
388. Unbelievers are right in most of their thinking
You might be one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right: myths and a religious fantasy have influenced human minds with larger strength than reality, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, opt for the status quo, or become marginalized.
Bishop John Shelby Spong says that “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence! Eminent philosophers and thinkers might give you an idea if this book might be an insightful reading for you (links below). You may look also at excerpts at Amazon.com.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
Jairo Mejia at 4:59PM on Jul 24th 2009