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 3 of 26)
31. 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 complete 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 10:11AM on Sep 17th 2008
32. Here is my problem: Yes Semper fi is correct if everyone learns to accept (not love) others this world would not be so crappy. It would not be perfect, but on the whole it would be better. But, when you have everyone yelling thier beliefs or non beliefs at each other it causes insanity.(sorry I could not come up with a better description) It causes a hatred. There should be a tolerance of all beliefs or non beliefs. The answer is not religion, the answer is not non belief. The only answer is knowledge and education of other cultures. There should be more promotion of education than any religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism, etc. Religion is dividing people more than it's unifying: which is its supposed main goal. My one wish before I die is for people to open their eyes and see the beauty diversity. However dumb that may sound.
Dee at 10:14AM on Sep 17th 2008
33. I see that DD is up to his usual tricks. Yawn.
I wonder what his last blog will be about?
I'm sure that most of you are aware of it but I'll mention it again anyhow. I have a new blog. See?
http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
And last night I got my first real argument from an apologist! I feel special.
Thanks to all of you who have visited, and to the rest of you, what the hell is the matter with you?
:-)
Saint Brian the Godless at 10:16AM on Sep 17th 2008
34. And by the way, I hope to see some christians there as well. Unless you don't feel able to argue with people on a blog where the author isn't on your side, of course.
I promise to be fair and not to flame you out, since it's my blog and I won't be doing that there.
In fact, I've even been thinking about allowing different people (mostly from this blog since I know you) to write the main blog page from time to time, christians included. I won't change a word (but will have a short statement explaining who's posting it and what their beliefs are) and will of course participate in the discussion of your post afterwards. This offer is extended to christians and atheists alike. All are welcome. This means even MIW, Observant, Janosophie1... Anybody, really. I don't want the place to be all one-sided. So if you think you've got an interesting page or two in you, let's talk.
Anyhow, that's my pitch.
:-)
Saint Brian the Godless at 10:26AM on Sep 17th 2008
35. Thank you for your response, Botts. You must recognize that your position is very rare among self described Christians. The institutionalization of faith into "religion" is the norm. It seems you do understand the objections to others religions being injected into our politics and policies. That is not the norm either. Most Christians want our laws to reflect their beliefs. The intrusion into the personal lives and decisions of individuals who do not share the faith is as wrong in this country as most American's feel it is wrong in other countries. Those that will rail against Taliban enforcement of a Burka for women will then deny gays the right to marry because it's against their God's will. The hypocrisy is endless.
I do object to your observation (judgement?) that I "stopped there." And that I just didn't find the "correct" information to lead me to Jesus, that I didn't have enough to make an informed decision. You seem to be a nice and sincere person, but that judgement is arrogant. Being an ex-atheist, you have to recognize that no one WANTS to be an unbeliever, or that that is their goal. No....those of us that discard the faith probably try harder than the "blind faithers" to find something, anything to keep believing. You sought and found what you think is the answer. I sought, and came up with a completely different answer, and have no doubt that I came across the same things you did. You were able to suspend some portion of logic and reality. I can't do that.
Jude at 10:26AM on Sep 17th 2008
36. First I do not adhere to the Catholic faith. Romanism killed hundred of thousands if not millions during the inqusistion because they chose to worship Christ instead of the pope. You can take each verse of the bible and make it mean anything you wish but if you approach it with a true wish to know its meaning you come away with something truly wonderful. One problem today is most people rely on others interptation and do not study on their own. People mix the old testament with the New and say now how to you explain this! The old testament is a history of Gods relationship with his people and the foretelling of the coming of Christ. The New Testament is Christ fullfilling the prophecy of the old testament. His teachings is all about love one another and each parable and every example is telling us how to do that and how important it is. And loveing one another WOULD solve all the worlds problems. There would be no tobacco, drugs, whiskey and other things that are self destructive. There would be no hunger or anyone doing without what they need. As long as the devil roams the earth there will always be some problems. But our loving one another would defeat him in so many ways. I am at total peace with myself in everyway. Are you? I do not and have never feared death. Do you? I am not angry nor do I hate anyone. Do you? The evidence of God is in our hearts, not at walmart or the car dealership. The devil comes uninvited and barges his way into our lives. You have to ask God to come into your life. And I to know what it feels like to be an atheist. Now I know what it feels like to be a Christian. Its sad that there are so many following the wrong path to God because of false teachers. They are the real problem for all of us.
Semper Fi at 10:28AM on Sep 17th 2008
37. Semper Fi. Wind is not invisible. It is the movement of molecules and atoms due to the Coriolis effect and solar heating. When steam rises in the air, it becomes wind once it starts moving.
Pope Cack IV at 10:28AM on Sep 17th 2008
38. Saint Brian the Godless,
You might actually become Saint Brian of God!
janesophie1 at 10:30AM on Sep 17th 2008
39. --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.--
Zatheus,
Every atheist I've read or spoken with has not been able to provide adequate answers to life's bigger questions, even material questions regarding the origin of the universe. Honest, religious individuals don't claim to be able to prove their religious beliefs. Rather, an objective, scientific look at the world they live in leads them to conlcude what they cannot see. Atheists do the same thing regarding evolution and the big-bang theory. These things cannot be observed. They are assumed to be true. In short, they are believed to be true on blind faith. The question becomes, do our observations of this natural world point to a supernatural force, or do they point to no force at all (this is the big-bang/evolution theory; that something came from nothing and then started to do something with no apparent intelligence cause). If that's not blind faith, I don't know what is.
On a different note, most of the responses to Dinesh's article actually confirm his point that atheists (or new atheists anyway) are generally intolerant of religious individuals - hence, they don't practice the tolerance they preach. As a Christian, I respect, even tolerate, an atheist's right to disagree with Dinesh. But the hostility with which they do so is very revealing.
Troy at 10:35AM on Sep 17th 2008
40. Semper Fi,
Catholics do not worship the Pope, Mary or any human being; we worship Jesus Christ and him alone! You have the freedom to hate the Catholic Church, but don't spread misinformation. You should spend time reading about the Catholic Church from Catholic sources, instead of from anti-Catholic propaganda. I am not getting into a denominational debate. Division between Christians is a scandal before the cross. I seek to focus on what we have in common. The constant bickering between Protestants, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox alienates many people who might otherwise come to the lord!
janesophie1 at 10:39AM on Sep 17th 2008
41. Wow, Semper Fi,
I'm glad you've figured out which "they" is the problem for all of us. That reassures me greatly. Just as your ridiculously simplistic view of the world must reassure you. Of course, my "they" includes yourself and the rest of the self-righteous faithful of any religion who preach tolerance so long as your included in thier "they".
The devil walking the earth, huh? And you say the wind is invisible?
healyartroom at 10:45AM on Sep 17th 2008
42. Dinesh's sudden rash of "book reports" have made for more interesting reading than usual - perhaps because most of the ideas being expressed do not originate with him - this one being the most interesting, albeit flawed, example. From DD's analysis, though, I'm not hearing anything that hasn't been claimed before.
"Novak rejects the certitudes of both the religious fundamentalist and the militant atheist."
Well, without reading his book, I've no idea whether or not Novak employs such an inflammatory term as "militant atheist". I'm inclined to believe he doesn't, as DD has used it and the like numerous times. If not, then DD is doing his friend a disservice; if so, well, how about calling them both "fundamentalists" or "militant"? If you are going to brand one extreme with the scarlet letter while striking the pose of scholarship, better do it to the other guy as well.
"' 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."
A compelling idea, though totally wrong. Virtually all of the "pop" atheists have detailed the times in their personal lives when religion played a part. Granted, it may not come through in their written work, but what scholar of any subject confines himself to the official canon? Interviews, debates, articles, etcetera: all paint a much deeper portrait of these contemporary atheists than their best-sellers.
Certainly, most anonymous atheists, such as myself, have genuine experience with religious belief; experience which doesn't require a "prolonged thought experiement" in its absence; experience which is later rejected for a multitude of reasons. So Dinesh's assertion that we "have no sense of what belief must be like from within" is a resoundingly hollow one.
"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."
This oft-cited trope of Xianity apologetics (particularly by DD himself) is incomplete. Citing Xianity as the "prime mover" of such concepts does not establish that such concepts were birthed by Christianity itself... yet that is the (il)logical leap that the overwhelming majority of apologists - and practicing Xians of all denominations and degrees - make on a regular basis. Many on this very blog have compelled DD to prove that such concepts as virtue, charity, compassion, etc., could ONLY have originated from Xianity; this request has, so far, gone unanswered. Therefore, this Xian argument should be shelved... and, again, Novak has said nothing new here, if indeed he actually said this at all.
"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?"
Agreed, but who says they don't? Is DD arguing that Dawkins/HItchens/Dennet/Harris/et al are practicing intolerance simply by virtue their words alone? Has Hitchens or Shermer been intolerant of DD in their public appearances? Or, is he suggesting that they actively practice intolerance in the form of violent attacks? The other level of this is tolerating the Xian while being intolerant of Xianity. Again, DD's "[i]n other words" is a gross misreading/misinterpretation unworthy of one of his background and education.
"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."
I'm surprised to hear such a confusion of terms coming from DD. The "public square/sphere" is much more than the "state": it encompasses the state and goes far beyond it. Jefferson was referring to the body of government alone; he decidedly was NOT referring to the "public square." The public square is open to all; is DD really arguing that is atheists say that it ISN'T?? Perhaps he means something else, and is using vague language; no atheist I know of asserts that the public square is "the property of secular citizens." This is a enormous non-sequitur, even by DD's standards.
Ian X. Christian at 10:50AM on Sep 17th 2008
43. "What a maroon."
Saint Brian the Godless at 2:15AM on Sep 17th 2008
HA HA HA! I've always loved that play on words. I know the writers for Bugs did it, but is it an old Vaudevillian thing?
Apologies about the persona thing. When Hays or Robert or whoever said that, it brought the trust level of each of our blog facades down to nil. That's kind of funny actually.
Why is there always irony? If irony were a town every home would be a nuthouse. Everything meaningful would be subtext. Ugh ugh ugh Irony I love you and I hate you; will you marry me?
oneblood at 10:51AM on Sep 17th 2008
44. "Catholics do not worship the Pope, Mary or any human being"
janesophie1 at 10:39AM on Sep 17th 2008
Yes you do. But I respect you anyway. God bless, I'm glad you're here and representin.
oneblood at 10:53AM on Sep 17th 2008
45. Troy,
Please do not make assertions about things you obviously have no understanding of. By this I mean scientific method and the resulting evidence used to arrive at scientific theories. Both BBT and modern synthesis (evolution) require no faith. There is an abundance of hard, observable evidence collected over decades of research and published peer-reviewed work that support both theories.
A common fallacy of believers seems to be that because they assume things without the basis of evidence so does the scientific community. To strengthen this argument they seem to be unwilling to ever look at the literally millions of pages of evidence collected over the years while fully accepting the benefits of this work.
I have no desire to argue either theory right now but please, don't make foolish assumptions about subjects you obviously know little about.
healyartroom at 10:55AM on Sep 17th 2008