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 7 of 26)
91. Linda,
I see what you mean, but it goes both ways. Just because you are an atheist like Mao was, doesn't mean you should be accountable for what he did. I just want the same to be said for Chrisitans. A televangelist taking money for himself doesn't have anything to do with me and I shouldn't have to be accountable and judged as a Christian for what he did.
Jacob at 3:47PM on Sep 17th 2008
92. Alyssa,
That's OK! =)
Jacob at 3:51PM on Sep 17th 2008
93. ""Jason and Alyssa: there is no "group" dogma associated with atheists. My non-belief in the supernatural has nothing to do with what any other self-proclaimed atheist, like Mao, may have done.
Religious cultists, however do share various dogmas, and intolerance of differing beliefs are well documented."
Linda, I'm well aware, as I am an atheist myself. I was merely agreeing with Jacob that it is unfair to paint all Christian ministers as out for the money.
Alyssa at 3:52PM on Sep 17th 2008
94. http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
The Power of Christ compels you! (to click on that little link...)
(I'm starting to feel like that a-hole that always posts the evolutionblogspot thingy)
Saint Brian the Godless at 3:55PM on Sep 17th 2008
95. I'm a Christian and I have to admit I don't care for organized religion, as I believe it goes against what Jesus really intended. The church turned what was supposed to be a relationship into an establishment. In this "establishment", there are some bad people who masquerade as followers of Christ. They take money for themselves even though Jesus specifically said that we can't shouldn't love money and be greedy. I agree that people who take money like that, like some televangelists, are not good people. I think God is going to be extremely harsh on people like that who try to better themselves and use "God's Will" as an income. I just don't think it's fair or accurate to portray all Christians as bad or greedy due to the actions of some.
Jacob at 4:00PM on Sep 17th 2008
96. Linda,
How's my fellow drunk?
I know DD's crap gets old, but I miss your insight. Please, come around more often...and check out the new blogs by StbtG and Botts, maybe something different for you there
Nice seein' ya back here :-)
mac at 4:10PM on Sep 17th 2008
97. Linda; welcome back! I usually agree with you on all points, but I do think the "atheism" of Mao and Stain was in fact dogmatic.
Now I would make the case that Mao and Stalin's "atheism" was not Atheism at all, but rather a non-theistic cult of the state. Soviet and Chinese "atheism" really has more in common with the organized religions of the world than it does with actual atheism or agnosticism.
Ryan Anderson at 4:10PM on Sep 17th 2008
98. Mac, you are a drunk also? It's nice to know I am not alone..ha ha
Dee at 4:21PM on Sep 17th 2008
99. linda! glad you're back!
danny was asking me if you had been commenting in the last week or so i'd been back on here. he wanted me to tell you hi.
Richelle at 4:21PM on Sep 17th 2008
100. I am so sick of you little man. Dinesh DiSouza, You are the most opportunistic
person I know. You just say what ever this uneducated fanatices want to hear,so you can make some money. These fanatices will wake up one day to see what a fake you are.
Hirut at 10:38PM on Sep 17th 2008
101. ATHEIST
Reply to: 82. not all big churches have money grubbing pastors. Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church, is a perfect
_______________
Rick Warren is one of the worst.
Go check his high school GPA.
If you need to find a truly STUPID person in order to run a Christian Church, he's your guy.
don't you GET it?
There are no demonic spirits.
Exorcists are con men.
Anyone can invent a story about a visit from an angel.
But when these FICTIONS are used to lure new victims into an End of the World cult, it's time to say "No."
While running the state of Alaska, Palin said she believed Jesus would return in her lifetime.
how can anybody be that STUPID?
William Hays at 4:38PM on Sep 17th 2008
102. My concerns about this typically misleading entry are these.
I love irony as much as the next guy but hearing a Christian pundit lauding Thomas Paine's contribution to theological enlightenment may set a new gold standard for chutzpah. Paine was reviled and persecuted throughout his life by the Christians of his era which would be abundantly clear to any scholar interested in the period. Not having yet read Novak's book I cannot comment on whether he too conveniently ignored the influence that Paine's vocal opposition to the execution of the French king actually had on the Jacobin decision to imprison him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the central quote of the day:
“"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.”
This supposition is simply not true. To begin this claim starts with the typical (and erroneous) assumption that all religious skeptics are the same and have arrived at their respective levels of disbelief by the exact same path. This is not true as one size does not fit all. D'Souza betrays his true nature by calling for empathy and understanding for Christians while lumping all the rest into his usual convenient category of generic atheist. Some have always been skeptics yet others started out as believers and I suspect many others started out wanting to believe. Certainly the last two groups have no problem empathizing with believers at some level. As for the former group of born skeptics most have no problem remembering the loving paternal /maternal embrace of their parents when they were children and how this envelop of love seemed capable of surmounting any problem. We can remember all the childhood anthropomorphizing and wonder which is a large part of every healthy child's growth. The skeptic however at some point was unable to project this loving paternalism onto some other entity capable of providing that same degree of self-assured security throughout adult life. That doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding the draw.
As for the believer being better equipped to understand the skeptic I think Novak has his wires crossed. As is evidenced by even a cursory look at the various apologist sites on the Web dedicated to the dissemination of the most blatantly unscientific 'factoids' used to shore up belief and the voracious appetite for such, it would seem that a significant number of believers will do and believe almost anything to avoid facing the possibility that they might be wrong. Otherwise this country wouldn't continue to be embroiled in the manufactured controversy surrounding biological descent with modification for example. How else can you explain a website where a question as to why humans don't live as long as they 'did in the Bible' is answered by describing a shell of ice that surrounded the earth, melted causing the flood, and whose absence allowed radiation to damage our DNA resulting in shorter lifespan? (Ignoring simple absurdity as a guide, several of the laws of physics are clearly violated by this scenario. Some of the words of science are in these sites but they are kind of jumbled around a bit.)
As I have stated before, the concern among the skeptical is how far various beliefs are extended into the public sphere. Acknowledging the contributions of such concepts as the 'golden rule' to government and society doesn't give anyone nightmares. However we arrived at our current state of morality is debatable but many believers and skeptics really do agree on most of the basics regardless of whether we think it's God's will or just beneficial to society as a whole. But how am I to be comfortable with the earthly problem solving skills of someone who believes that ice-ball theory? Or that thinks that dinosaurs and Man co-existed? Isn't that asking a bit much of anyone? Would I trust them in a position of power where critical thinking might make the difference between national survival or devastation? No, I would not. How do you discuss the science of global warming with a person who essentially thinks that the Flintstones is a documentary? (I am sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but considering the enormous volume of unbelievable disinformation that is creating such an intellectual signal to noise problem for the average person on the Internet, I am probably being too kind.) That is where the problem remains. Where do you draw the line? When do we get to say 'well that's just silly” and move on to another topic. In today's America we don't. Every nonsensical idea gets air time or is propagated via the Web. Credibility is granted not through peer-reviewed scrutiny but rather by mere presence on the Web coupled with circulation and the willingness to feed someone's needs or fears. The result will be a nation confounded by 'the demon haunted world' about which Carl Sagan warned. Unable to compete and untrusted among nations because of our inability to think critically we may be doomed to becoming a third rate bastion of divinity – similar to those countries in the middle east we accuse of being backward. (The founders were wise in trying to avoid that slippery slope all together knowing that finding a reasonable balance between belief and fair governance was beyond us. They tried to keep government and religion apart as long as possible.)
Does that mean that believers and skeptics can never resolve to work together? I think it can and does happen. But if I am honest, the only times it has worked well in my estimation is when 'God loving' people took part and fewer 'God fearing' people showed up to the party. I'm not trying to sound trite here (probably failing miserably in the process) but those people I have known who I would call God lovers always find a way to navigate through life and incorporate new knowledge into some evolving form of spirituality. These are people who seem aglow with that inner light that is rarely seen in practice. I work well with some of these people. They aren't threatened by skeptics. It doesn't work for me, but hey to each his own. God fearers however have always seemed to get wrapped around the mechanistic aspects of religion, spending more time unbendingly defending dogma than enjoying an enlightened spiritual journey. Unfortunately to me, it seems that the later group is growing in numbers.
I also have to be honest that my feelings on the matter are colored by having grown up during a time in American and world history where Christianity probably reached its liberal peak. The 60's and 70's may have been the high water mark of Christian service largely unencumbered by dogmatic obsession. Not a lot of heretics got burned in the 1960's – stoned yes, but burned no... Today it seems like those loving spirits are being displaced by a growing number of people I encounter going to these big box store churches to get their weekly fix of dogma so they can ignore their scurrilous behavior of the previous 6 days and still feel superior to their neighbors in the process – apparently satisfied with single-serving piety in place of spirituality and service. Still, a lot of good work gets done by people on both sides of the fence of religiosity but that is part of the problem. It's kind of like our political situation of late – the doers quietly go about their work while the pretenders grab the spotlight and engender conflict.
Now for some great news for you all! If I seems as if I tried to cram a ton into this post well, I apologize. Because of the convergence of a number factors I must take my leave and am unlikely to darken the bloggers door again. I have enjoyed reading your posts and have learned a great deal from many of you. Good luck to you all, and I hope that you all find peace in whatever form that you can. I hope that spirituality, enlightenment and empiricism can coexist or even thrive together in this 21st century. Now I am off to do my small part in the battle! And if I can be forgiven for borrowing what I consider to be the best part of the Catholic Mass – Peace be with you all.
Pliny-the-in-Between at 4:40PM on Sep 17th 2008
103. ATHEIST
reply to: 94. I'm a Christian and I,... I think God is going to be extremely harsh on people like that who try to better themselves and use "God's Will" as an income. Jacob
_____
So, you "think" God is going to be harsh...
What is wrong with you?
You have no idea what a god is, or isn't, going to do.
Like so many other friggin' idiots, you've reached a point where you feel that you can tell other people what you think God is going to do????
We can STOP Christianity. We can STOP it by demanding, "How do you know this?"
Nobody ever saw Jesus rise from the dead. They only think that he should have... and they told other people what they believed. It's all NONSENSE.
William Hays at 4:42PM on Sep 17th 2008
104. Dee,
I'm a dsrunk from waaaayy back.
Been sober for 16 years and counting. I am an addictive character....booze, quit that....marryjane, threw her ass out....smokes, still do that one.....food, that's a hard fight.
SEX, yeah BIG one, I fight that one daily....or rather nightly and daily ;-)
mac at 4:45PM on Sep 17th 2008
105. SEX, yeah BIG one, I fight that one daily....or rather nightly and daily ;-)---well sex is proven to be good for you. It stregthens your immune system.
If more people had sex, more people would be happy. No one would have any religious or political problems because no one would care. The world would be a happy place. That is the answer to the world's problems. Everyone should have more sex. William Hays: I don't even think you would disagree on this one. :)
Dee at 4:53PM on Sep 17th 2008