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 5 of 26)
61. ...... And hello to my new friend, Botts. I've enjoyed reading your views. I CAN now say I've met a Christian who doesn't bow to the organized, institutionalized religion. It gives me hope. :-)
Jude at 12:41PM on Sep 17th 2008
62.
First off, Troy: Big Bang theory isn't an atheist conspiracy to deny gods existance, it was first postulated by A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST.
If you look at the posts by most of the faithful, it is specific dogma, over and over. Jesus is the way, without god, you can't tell evil from good.
And that's a great place to start, one of my favorites - evil from good. Since specific dogma's define them in totally different terms, and levels, religion is also blind to what is truly evil or good. It can be changed over the course of a single generation.
Albert Einstein once said "the world is a dangerous place to live; not because of those who are evil, but because of those who do nothing about it." But that is really a paradox. To define what's evil, and what should be done about it. Hitler was convinced that the jews were evil, and he did something about it. Early Americans were convinced the "savage" Indians were evil, and did something about it. Stalin knew the bolshevicks were evil, and did something about it. Timothy McVeigh, The Irish Republican Army, the KKK, The PLO, Che Guevara, Osama Bin Laden, Pol Pot. The list is endless. All convinced of the rightness of their cause, and brutal in their quest to uphold it.
There is no single entity that can definitively lay claim to good, or unilaterally define evil. If you claim Jesus never did anything wrong, you're wrong.
ex-christian at 12:42PM on Sep 17th 2008
63.
"Science is the exploration and discovery of how God does things ..."
m. smith at 12:43PM on Sep 17th 2008
64. "The believer knows full well where the atheist is coming from." DD
>> This is patently false! I've talked to may believers and you can read it on this blog - those who believe have no idea and can't imagine not believing in the big spook in the sky. They just can't fathom the possibility that they are alone in this world and can't be forgiven for all their supposed transgressions against their big spook.
""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.""DD
It's called logic and the fact that there is no verifiable proof of the existence of a spook in the sky. He wants evidence? What about the evidence that there is a god? No, that would be too simple.
"Habermas shows that the very idea of toleration is a gift that religious thought has bequeathed to modern secular society." DD
Are you kidding me? Religion and those who subscribe to it's doctrine, are the most intolerable group of people that I have ever witnessed. All you have to do is look at the gay/lesbian issue and know that there is no tolerance.
Slaves? Okay!
The subjugation of women? Okay!
Gays are subhuman and should be re-programmed? Okay!
I could go on and on. Really! A gift of religious thought that has been bequeathed upon the secular society?
Maybe it was all that ridiculous religious thought that prompted secular beliefs.
And in this country we have a right to express our beliefs - that is why you can have your stupid religion.
Just don't expect my secular government to "choose" your religion and it's doctrine over my freedom to not believe.
TJ at 12:45PM on Sep 17th 2008
65. " You hear of the born again pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. You never hear of an atheist pharmacist trying to push birth control pills. The Christians want to pull books off shelves."
Well,Jude, I actually visited the website when I learned of these pharmacists. It pissed me off more than you could know. I actually thought that this was illegal because they are denying "healthcare," but it's not. What they are doing is perfectly legal. It's sickening. There are so many unwanted children, let's just add some more, huh? I agree with you on every point you made.
Hope Botts and Zatheus are well today
Dee at 12:50PM on Sep 17th 2008
66. Hey, I just saw God!!!!
He's over here!
http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
Saint Brian the Godless at 12:59PM on Sep 17th 2008
67. I would hope it's perfectly legal to fire the offending pharmacists.
Ryan Anderson at 12:57PM on Sep 17th 2008
68. "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."
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!!!
Most of this posting by Dinesh is simply a rehash of arguments of long standing- very little else. Several of the posters have answered the obvious fallacies in this latest book report regarding atheists' "inability" to understand belief, uless they have experienced it!!!, Whereas, believers are alledged to be able to understand atheism (also,in most cases, without ever having experienced it). So what? The issue is not about whether or not unbelievers are doomed to Hell unless they are "saved"; it is about the insistance of Christians (much more so than any other organized religion with the possible exception of Islam) upon their "need" and right to impose belief (in their particular version of Christianity) on everyone else. Believers insist on assuming that unbelief is actually a form of "faith", that unbelievers have a dogma or central "representatives" whose views are "respected" by other atheists, that atheists are by definition "immoral" and uncaring for their fellow man because they do not believe in God, etc. All of this clearly demonstrates believers' inability to understand unbelief, except by trying to see it as another "religion".
The real problem with this post, to me, resides in the last paragraph I have pasted above. Whatever the author Dinesh quoted may have said, this is Dinesh's reason for posting this article. Once again, he is trying to use it to force erosion of freedom of religion (and FROM religion) protected by our constitution. He clearly means that religious objects, observances, teaching, etc. should be allowed in "public" scenarios, rather than being limited to private, religious ones. He chooses not to see that no one is preventing Christians from trying to spread their message and beliefs under CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREIN PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO LISTEN OR EVEN PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THEM. Thus, feedom to publish religious texts, to preach in church or private schools, to take ads in the newspaper, etc. (all circumstances in which unbelievers can ignore them if they so choose) are protected. The feedom "from" religion part is what Dinesh (and unfortunately many Christians) want to encroach upon. (i.e. Teaching Creationism as a "Science??" in public schools, banning books that "offend" them from public libraries, requiring public religious displays, pledges, silent prayer, etc). Thus his call for "fairness" in the public square.
If Christians and now Muslims were not so insistant upon everyone believing and observing as they believe is correct, the world would be a much better place. (And yes, I completely agree that if we all "loved each other" more it would solve most of our problems, but our willingness and/or ability to do so does not come only from God.)
Harvey at 1:00PM on Sep 17th 2008
69. "Well,Jude, I actually visited the website when I learned of these pharmacists. It pissed me off more than you could know. I actually thought that this was illegal because they are denying "healthcare," but it's not. What they are doing is perfectly legal. It's sickening. There are so many unwanted children, let's just add some more, huh?"
I agree completely. At least the nice thing is (even if the 'born again' pharmacists are wrong in my opinion), there are far more out there that feel it's only their job to give the medication that you're asking for or were prescribed. A pharmacy like that would permanently lose my business, no matter how 'right' their employees think they are.
I know if I went to go get some antibiotics for an infection, that I wouldn't want some morality speech about how I need to leave my health in God's hands. I just want the pills, thanks!
Hope you're doing well today too Dee. =)
Lots of great reading on this blog today, by many different people. Glad I got to see it before it ballooned into 43 pages worth of comments. If this blog, or another similar one does appear elsewhere, I hope it uses a better friggin system. This comment section is archaic in the way it's set up. Maybe some people will migrate to SBtG's blog. I'd like to continue seeing what people have to say on things, usually makes for interesting reading. =)
Zatheus at 1:09PM on Sep 17th 2008
70. "This is not simply a matter of refusing to apply the vaunted virtue of skepticism to one's own philosophy."
DD (and Novak): it is their skepticism that led them to their conclusions in the first place. Why would you enter into the tautological exercise of being skeptical about your conclusions drawn by your skepticism.
"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?"
DD (and Novak): Organized religion has stigmatized the non-believer as an evil or "lost" or immoral person. Many people are not willing publically to admit their qualms about Belief. If Christianity claims that all moral values and behavior flows from a divine origin (and they do), then by definition an non-believer is at best amoral and at worse immoral. DD, you have done your share of the stigmatizing.
"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?"
Religious people don't need to be proactively tolerant of non-believers because the latter don't subscribe to a set of beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, etc. that have much outward manifestation. The only requirement is that Church and State remain separate. Organized religion, on the other hand, seeks to proactively and overtly act in ways that do impact non-believers. From those that seek to introduce Creation myths into public schools to adoption of environment policies based on the idea that Man was given dominion over the earth to limitations on reproductive rights based on religious beliefs. When secularists propose action in the same areas of endeavor, it is not based on unseen, untestable beliefs, it is based on reason, what can be observed and measured and is rationally consistent. Novak even says "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."
DD writes:
"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."
It seems to me that he is here not talking about religiosity but rather "spirituality" which many non-believers do not reject as part of the human experience. The are many wonderful, intangible, ephemeral experiences in life that defy reduction to atoms and first principles. Non-believers understand this and revel in it. Absolutist, hard-core reductionist non-believers are not as common as you think, DD. They just don’t see the need to codify it, wrap it up into myths and rules and tenets as do organized religions. Secularists also do not attempt to jam their sense of spirituality down the throats of others as do many people like DD. Nor do they overtly seek to stigmatize Believers in the same way that believers wish to stigmatize secularists. In this sense, Novak should realize that secularists are more willing to grant the “two-way” street he seeks than are believers.
Just look at the current presidential race…would a candidate professing his non-belief in Christian religious doctrine (while still maintaining his personal spirituality) ever have a chance in an election? Of course not! Organized religion would see to it that he/she was excoriated and marginalized. So much for the accommodating “two-way street” mentality attributed by DD to Christians.
John Galt
John Galt at 1:11PM on Sep 17th 2008
71. Poor phrasing on my part:
"If Christianity claims that all moral values and behavior flows from a divine origin (and they do), then by definition an non-believer is at best amoral and at worse immoral. DD, you have done your share of the stigmatizing."
Should read
"If Christianity claims (and they do), that all moral values and behavior flows from a divine origin then by definition any non-believer is at best amoral and at worse immoral. DD, you have done your share of the stigmatizing."
John Galt
John Galt at 1:13PM on Sep 17th 2008
72.
Why do we demand that the religious convictions remain outside of the public sphere? Michael Servetus is a great example, and one Dinesh himself gave me. He claimed Calvin as a STEP FORWARD.
Here's an excerpt from Wiki on his demise...
As Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, and legally could at worst be banished, the government had consulted with other Swiss Reformed cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen), which universally favored his condemnation and the suppression of his doctrine, but without saying how that should be accomplished.[22] Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms. Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. Those who went against the idea of his execution, the party called "Libertines", drew the ire of much of Christendom. On 24 October Servetus was sentenced to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism. When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation rather than fire, Farel, in a letter of September 8, chided him for undue lenity[23], and the Geneva Council refused his request. On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."[24]
The common view of the age, that heretics like Servetus should be subject to punishment, was explained by Calvin as follows:
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.[25]
This is what you get when you put dogma before law, and allow "religious conviction" into the public sphere.
Here's the full bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus
ex-christian at 1:20PM on Sep 17th 2008
73.
StBG, I'll be over sooner or later.
Google doesn't like me. {sniff}
I'm waiting on a response from them to help me set up an account.
I'll come post a comment when I can!
Doofus at 1:44PM on Sep 17th 2008
74. Actually, evolution CAN and IS being observed all the time. As for the big bang THEORY, it's just that. A theory.
xxxxx
I understand that with science advancing exponentially it's hard to keep up, but the 'big bang' is as established as gravity or electricity.
This is due to detection of the original light that is now 13.5 billion years later in the microwave spectrum due to the expansion of the universe. This was done first on Earth in the seventies and densities in the microwave emissions were verified c. 1990 by a specially designed probe whose acronym I've forgotten.
There is no argument from anyone with legitimate SCIENTIFIC credentials that it happened.
In fact, you can see it on an analog tv as 'snow' if there's no broadcast and you can hear it on any am radio that's not tuned to a station - it's part of the hiss.
Evolution is now proven beyond any legitimate criticism and has been for some time.
We now know entire genomes by sequence of any species we can collect dna from, and that's any species. The mechanism by which mutations create speciation and give rise to specific traits is completely known and has been for some time.
The idea that these mechanisms, the molecular genetics of organisms are in any way anything less rigorous than other chemistry or physics or engineering is simply uninformed.
If people don't have the wit to pass a college entrance exam, this is never going to sink in. They can be manipulated forever, but that won't change reality.
If religion can't adapt to 21st century science, it's worth nothing. It is simply delusion. The knowledge will never go away, so religion's only options are violent suppression or adaptation.
That's called evolution.
At present, fundamentalist religion can only survive by violent suppression, which is what you read here every day and what is preached from the gonesh pulpit.
When you try to mix religion with politics, fundamentalists, the resulting aroma is worse than mixing shit with vomit.
Keep it in church and no one will mind if you can't figure out fifteenth century scientific knowledge.
Clif Kuplen at 1:46PM on Sep 17th 2008
75. Maybe some people will migrate to SBtG's blog. I'd like to continue seeing what people have to say on things, usually makes for interesting reading. =)
Zatheus at 1:09PM on Sep 17th 2008
-------------------------
I recently posted this on my blog. It seems appropriate to post it here as well.
+++
It's late as I type this and so I will go into more detail tomorrow in answering your individual posts, but I am very happy to see so may people stopping by, so many familiar "faces" if you will. I know that this blog is hardly as glamorous a place as the one we all came from, but I do hope to at least provide a common ground in the future for all of us to meet up at. I know that all of you are too prolific to confine yourselves to any one locale and that you're naturally going to find new homes where the volume and exposure is greater than on my tiny little blog here. But I shall endeavor to at least provide this page so that we can touch bases and even perhaps, dare I hope, discuss weighty matters as of old on occassion. It's a learning curve for me so I humbly ask your indulgence, and I like to think that the overall quality will improve over time. As an important aside, I respect you all and value your thoughts so much that I'd like to propose that in the future you all can have a turn at writing the main post of blogs that appear here. I would step aside and give all credit to you of course for the post, for what that's worth. And I think the concept of guest speakers is a good one and can only make the blog stronger and more fun. I think I shall also extend this offer to even some of my former adversaries on the old DD blog, the "hypochrists" as I like to term them, shallow me. I can picture telling MIW or Observant that they can have the page and I won't interfere, just email me the text and I'll post it verbatim and even join in the discussion of it myself afterwards. Stop me if you think this isn't a good idea. I mean, I love the idea of blogging and having a page like this, but I want to share it with all of you somehow, since we all come from the same place, sorta. Even the ones I intensely disagree with. We're a motley crew.
Oh, and you remember that ole GHB that became StBtG? The one that would fly off the handle at people that annoyed him? He won't be appearing here very often, if at all. It's not a promise to change my ways; it's an observation of my change of mind-set. Since it's my own blog, I can't see myself flaming people like I used to. It would be too embarassing somehow. Isn't that interesting? The things you learn about yourself online, I tell ya...
So thanks again, and I notice a certain "eric" has posted an entry on the more recent page about christianity dumbing people down. He's the apologist type. Not sure if he's the "eric" from the boards who was a renzo clone yet. He's put some detail into it and so I won't answer him now, since I'm dead on my feet. However, golly gee gosh, it sure would be nice if some valiant athiest went over there and got to him before I could. :-)
Saint Brian the Godless at 1:46PM on Sep 17th 2008