I bumped into a chap in a Waterstones bookshop during my holiday in England a week or two ago. I was looking (read: drooling) through Dawkins' popular scientific works trying to imagine I had the money to buy one, and a man sidled up and started talking to me about Dawkins. It turned out that he was a convinced atheist and so I excitedly continued the conversation as in many ways I sympathise with atheism, even though I am a committed Christian (more on that below). I also felt that I had something to say in response to this man's claims. However, again and again he refused to listen to anything I said; he literally stopped me talking and barged in with his own rhetoric. I was standing, it slowly became clear to me, in the presence of a Fundamentalist atheist - or better still antitheist. All the marks were there in his speeches to me – a strong identification with an atheist subculture, talk of a strong and definite 'conversion' point, an inability to listen to a questioning of his authority (Dawkins), a total lack of awareness that he was unable to truly dialogue, the immediate and false pigeonholing of his 'opponents' etc.
Nevertheless, I think it is very important for Christian theologians to grapple with the arguments of antitheists. And Dawkins in particular is doing much that is worthwhile. To be honest, I think I kind of like the guy - and I certainly sympathised with much of what he said in his clash with Ted Haggard. In actual fact, though it would need to be judged case by case, a good volume of Dawkins or Harris could be the tonic a Christian Fundamentalist needs to progress in faith. These antitheist arguments must be digested and understood, and I am convinced that an honest grappling with antitheism will help to strip away illusions and bring the Christian back to the heart of faith and to a robust, deeply traditional and healthy faith. OK, some atheists are as bad as some religious folk, as your average fruit-loop pseudo-intellectual religious Fundamentalist, and there is no fun in attempting to dialogue with them. But it is still worth sitting through a monologue or two to really understand what they are saying. Let me explain:
Over the last year or so I have grappled very personally with atheism and I feel I really do understand (and appreciate) many aspects of the various atheist cases. The arguments got inside me and became conversation partners. At the end of the day I do not feel compelled by their arguments, but the issues and arguments that have internally bounced around in my head and in conversations with friends have pointed me deeper, I think, into the truth of God in Christ, the nature of faith and what this should practically mean for me and the world. It has been a healing experience.
11 comments:
Atheism is on the rise on this side of the Atlantic. I fear that North America is rapidly catching up to the Continent. This Summer, atheism, as a topic, was featured on many radio talk shows, news magazines, etc.
With you, I have noted that Dawkins often shoots from the hip without any real understanding of what he is attacking. My reading of Dawkins has mostly been in magazine articles, so perhaps I have not read his fully articulated views. But every time I read him, I come away saying, "you're not talking about me or my faith!"
Is an antitheist the antithesis of an atheist or a theist? Say it 5 times real quick.
I really enjoyed this post - honest and thought provoking - many thanks. You are probably aware of this, but Harris reserves very strong condemnation for religious moderates/liberals because he argues that they continue to provide ground for the fundamentalists to survive. It is challenging argument.
I couldn't make it through Dawkins book -- half way through I gave up. Harris' book, fortunately, is brief and to the point. But I find his insistence that the only true faith is fundamentalist faith unfortunate. It's not just that moderates/liberals give cover to fundamentalists, but that if we were true believers we would be fundamentalists -- that I think is simply wrong. For Harris there is only black and white and no shades of gray. I disagree.
Good question, Steve. I’ll try to clarify this for Chris:
Just as an atheist would tend to athetize the theses of a theist, so an antitheist would be antithetical to a theist in that his views would be antitypical to the theories of a theologian. And Dawkin's brand of antitheism tends toward the theatrical.
I appreciate hearing the term "antitheist" as this is what I have many self-proclaimed atheists. If you are offended by God, then clearly you are not an atheist.
Dawkin's books on evolution struck me the same way as what you have described: Eloquent with plenty of humor and examples. On the other hand, his grasp of how design happens is as weak as his appreciation of faith and God.
I will need to go hunt down the Letter to the Christian Nation and see what is so special there.
Hi Looney,
On the other hand, his grasp of how design happens is as weak as his appreciation of faith and God.
Actually I think Dawkins is at his best here.
kind regards, Simon
Cliff, I second that!
Thanks for the smile, Steve (and Cliff!)!!
Theodotus, what I did leave out of the post were the sleepless hours in bed which accompanied my "growing pains"! Then it would have been perhaps a bit too honest! Thanks for your comment.
Joel, those links are brilliant, I need to note that blog!
Pastor Bob,
I share your disagreement! I think Harris' argument is quite telling, actually. I think of Fowlers stages of faith development!
Looney, I'm not sure the Harris book is so special, but what I have read of it was a little better than Dawkins. That's all!
And I second Simon!
This may be well-known on this site but it is Hitchens I believe who has popularised the anti-theist designation. In many interviews he has said he is not an atheist - becuase this can carry with it the possibility that while you don't believe God exists you wish He did. By Contrast Hitchens says he is glad God doesn't exist because he can't think of anything worse than living in a society for eternity where you are under total surveillance and spend much of the day singing praises to your leader. To illustrate his argument he points to the earthly example of present day North Korea and with his usual wit points out that these folk would be much happier if they had something simple to eat and drink and had some relief from the din of compulsory enthusiasm.
But i also agree with most of the other comments that these guys mainly attack fundamentalist expressions of religion and most people who value reason accept the criticisms.
As one of your atheist friends -- I hope I do qualify as a friend -- let me say that, as far as I've seen, Dawkins does a good job at arguing against the sort of religion that 'most people believe in' (at least most American conservative Christians) but he is lacking the theological sophistication to combat the more serious arguments in religion's favor. (As for Harris, his acceptance of various type of 'paranormal phenomena' and 'spirituality' among other reasons makes me put him in the same category I put Noam Chomsky's politics, or for that matter, the idiot deconstructionists -- that they frequently come down on the 'right' side, but almost inevitably for the wrong reasons.)
That's why I value the "Debunking Christianity" website so highly -- and I am no longer a member of the group, just a frequent commenter there. The actual members are usually ministers who spent decades of studying Christianity to teach it better, and then finally were convinced of its inherent flaws and lack of truth.
I have been nudging you towards somehow finding the time to join the discussions -- as I would your readers -- because too often the 'Christian side' is being defended by the most literalist fundamentalists, and I think both sides would benefit from seeing Christianity being defended by intelligent evangelicals.
That is a good point, Macht.
Hi Jim,
Nice to hear from you. Your manner of dialoguing with believers is a model, so yes I consider you a friend. I have thought about your invites to "debunking", but I felt I would need to give it more time than I have. Hence I have avoided it. I already waste too much time on the net! (looks at blog!)
What I didn't like about Dawkins is that he claimed his arguments were not simplyagainst Fundamentalists, but all expressions of faith anywhere.
Post a Comment