Some Thoughts on The New Athiesm
Those who have been reading beyond the pages of US Weekly will have noticed a new, very distinctive trend developing over the last few years. In 2006 and 2007, this trend has become a phenomenon - and one that Christians should be aware of.
The Post-Denominational Church is big on following the superficial trends of culture but not the deep changes in philosophical climate. Pastors grow goatees but not an environmental conscience. Churches understand PowerPoint but not Postmodernism.
This is understandable. Its easy to grasp the visual trends but not intellectual ones. So, for the fashion conscious we could say it this way: Atheism is the new black.
Course, atheism has been with us for a while - we've had Hume, Darwin, Shaw, Huxley, and Sagan to keep us company for the last few centuries. And an atheism of sorts has been with us from the beginning - Epicurus' famous argument against God's existence is still the basis of the problem of evil - a detached deistic god is little different from no God at all. Both atheism and constricted deism set humanity to fend for itself in the universe. Neither legitimate religious practice. Why worship a God who isn't there it who isn't listening?
But not until very recently has atheism "hit its stride". Before, we had figures like G. B. Shaw, who stood alone, on an island of their own convictions surrounded by a sea of faith.
Now the tide is turning and what once were archipelagos are now becoming continents. These nation states are becoming united - "One Nation Not Under God".
***
What is this New Atheism? It's defined, I think, by a rather unblinking naturalism, in both senses of the word. In common usage naturalism implies an interest in nature (John Muir was a naturalist), and in philosophical circles it means that there is only matter in motion.
This trend is interested in science and opposed to salvation. "No heaven. No hell. Just science", might be on the flag, under Darwin's patriarchal visage.
There's an admirable quality to the movement, to be sure. To deny heaven as well as hell shows a strong conviction to follow the true, and not just the feelgood. This is very anti-Oprah - very anti-Osteen. And atheists are at their best when they are facing up to the most difficult aspects of their belief system - something Christians often avoid.
But how, you might ask, in a world where Oprah rules the airwaves, and Joel Osteen has the largest church in America, is the New Atheism going to gain any ground?
Malcolm Gladwell described the three necessary conditions for wide-scale change, he called these "The Tipping Point", which this movement has going for it:
Condition 1). The Law of the Few: Radical change begins with a few key "disseminators". These are people with a wide sphere of influence. The New Atheism has a scientist (Richard Dawkins), two journalist-provocateurs (Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens), a myth-maker (Phillip Pullman) and at least two comedians (Julia Sweeney and Bill Maher). New Atheism has a voice. That most of the above figures rank somewhere on the asshole scale (Sweeney excepted) seems to make little difference. Theblogosphere is now rife with variations of these arguments - often far more vitriolic.
Condition 2). Stickiness: Another key condition is an easy acceptibility of the message. There has to be something provocative and powerful in the idea. The stickiness of the message is Ockham's Razor, in that seeks to shave away all complicating factors to human rationality. After Darwin, it is difficult to insert God into the scientific explanation for human life. Seeking to reconcile Genesis and Evolutioninvolvesback -bends and footnotes, nuances in textual analysis or scientific philosophy. Before Darwin, human life seemed too miraculous, too improbable for easy explanation. Since Darwin, by simply cutting God out of the equation, we make the explanation for human biology easier to understand.
Condition 3). The Power of Context: Victor Hugo said, "Nothing is stronger then an idea whose time has come." The New Atheism's time camewhenIslamist terrorists Jihaded the World Trade Center. In a world where religion is the perceived cause of violence and fear, atheism suddenly becomes attractive. That religious leaders like Falwell opined that this attack was God's judgment on America's liberalism, didn't help. That George Bush claimed to have consulted his father - his Heavenly Father - before invading Iraq, only cemented the idea that a world without God would be a less violent world.
***
These three conditions have now collided and have formed this New Atheism, which is now snowballing downhill, picking up momentum as it comes. But is it going to hit the church? Unlikely, though it may crush a few minivans in the parking lot.
The church triumphant has little to worry about from this trend because The New Atheism has no contact with real Christianity. Christians already know that the Gospel is good news, and that Christ calls us to love everyone, not to violence.
Most people, I think are also in disagreement with the idea that life is better without God. As Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are keen to emphasize - they don't want to go to heaven. They don't feel that God adds anything to the equation - Hitchens compares the idea of a providentially ordained universe as a sort of celestial North Korea. These guys prefer to be alone in the universe. I think most Christians would disagree.
How far removed their critique is from reality means that few Christians will feel the impact of the argument.
But for many people in the world, this caricature seems real enough.
This new Internet trend - the blasphemy challenge - shows that lots of folks are open to rejecting God altogether.
But I cannot believe that these blasphemous bloggers are really rejecting the Christian God. Is it even possible to reject perfect love (Barth calls this the "impossible possibility")? If we reject perfection, can we really believe it to be perfect? I think we can, in some ultimate sense, choose God over ourselves (Socrates thought not). But I doubt that so many would so quick to reject God if they thought Him perfectly Good.
***
So what do we do?
I have no doubt that Dawkins, Pullman, Harris, and all those bloggers feel as though they have finally nailed Jesus to the cross of science. And they are free to hammer away. The Christian God is used to this sort of treatment. He can take it. And none of their arguments - not evolution or the scientific method - not the crusades or the problem of evil - have been sufficient to kill Christian truth.
But the church militant must still deal with real people, no matter how confused their ideas.
What are we to make of the growing anti-religious sentiment?
Watch a few of the blasphemy challenge videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE) and see if you find the effect as chilling as I do.
Though I think the challenge mis-gets what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is (the author of Mark comments that Jesus warns them of blasphemy because they credited Jesus' power to Satan), it is still unnerving to see very young people seeking to reject their religious upbringing by denying the Holy Spirit in the strongest way they know how.
What response can we offer to this? Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort tried to respond to the Blasphemy Challenge (http://www.rationalresponders.com/) but with little success.
It is impossible to dialogue with Dawkins or Falwell or Bin Laden, because they are demagogues. Hitchens and Harris are bombastic provocateurs more than philosophers, and teenagers can't sit still long enough to debate.
I say nothing of conversion - only conversation - but even this seems impossible.
Julia Sweeney's monologue "Letting Go of God" is a much more tender and honest position to take, and I could see chatting over tea with her about religion. But what can we say to people who are convinced that religion can't be true (because of an false science/faith dichotomy) and who wouldn't want it to be true even if there were no dichotomy?
I invite comment, as I'm trying to shape this into a larger piece.
And don't say "Just live the life Christ calls us to live in humble silence." That's a cop out.
***
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GIIVideo
http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html#3326723723176082734
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo
The Post-Denominational Church is big on following the superficial trends of culture but not the deep changes in philosophical climate. Pastors grow goatees but not an environmental conscience. Churches understand PowerPoint but not Postmodernism.
This is understandable. Its easy to grasp the visual trends but not intellectual ones. So, for the fashion conscious we could say it this way: Atheism is the new black.
Course, atheism has been with us for a while - we've had Hume, Darwin, Shaw, Huxley, and Sagan to keep us company for the last few centuries. And an atheism of sorts has been with us from the beginning - Epicurus' famous argument against God's existence is still the basis of the problem of evil - a detached deistic god is little different from no God at all. Both atheism and constricted deism set humanity to fend for itself in the universe. Neither legitimate religious practice. Why worship a God who isn't there it who isn't listening?
But not until very recently has atheism "hit its stride". Before, we had figures like G. B. Shaw, who stood alone, on an island of their own convictions surrounded by a sea of faith.
Now the tide is turning and what once were archipelagos are now becoming continents. These nation states are becoming united - "One Nation Not Under God".
***
What is this New Atheism? It's defined, I think, by a rather unblinking naturalism, in both senses of the word. In common usage naturalism implies an interest in nature (John Muir was a naturalist), and in philosophical circles it means that there is only matter in motion.
This trend is interested in science and opposed to salvation. "No heaven. No hell. Just science", might be on the flag, under Darwin's patriarchal visage.
There's an admirable quality to the movement, to be sure. To deny heaven as well as hell shows a strong conviction to follow the true, and not just the feelgood. This is very anti-Oprah - very anti-Osteen. And atheists are at their best when they are facing up to the most difficult aspects of their belief system - something Christians often avoid.
But how, you might ask, in a world where Oprah rules the airwaves, and Joel Osteen has the largest church in America, is the New Atheism going to gain any ground?
Malcolm Gladwell described the three necessary conditions for wide-scale change, he called these "The Tipping Point", which this movement has going for it:
Condition 1). The Law of the Few: Radical change begins with a few key "disseminators". These are people with a wide sphere of influence. The New Atheism has a scientist (Richard Dawkins), two journalist-provocateurs (Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens), a myth-maker (Phillip Pullman) and at least two comedians (Julia Sweeney and Bill Maher). New Atheism has a voice. That most of the above figures rank somewhere on the asshole scale (Sweeney excepted) seems to make little difference. Theblogosphere is now rife with variations of these arguments - often far more vitriolic.
Condition 2). Stickiness: Another key condition is an easy acceptibility of the message. There has to be something provocative and powerful in the idea. The stickiness of the message is Ockham's Razor, in that seeks to shave away all complicating factors to human rationality. After Darwin, it is difficult to insert God into the scientific explanation for human life. Seeking to reconcile Genesis and Evolutioninvolvesback -bends and footnotes, nuances in textual analysis or scientific philosophy. Before Darwin, human life seemed too miraculous, too improbable for easy explanation. Since Darwin, by simply cutting God out of the equation, we make the explanation for human biology easier to understand.
Condition 3). The Power of Context: Victor Hugo said, "Nothing is stronger then an idea whose time has come." The New Atheism's time camewhenIslamist terrorists Jihaded the World Trade Center. In a world where religion is the perceived cause of violence and fear, atheism suddenly becomes attractive. That religious leaders like Falwell opined that this attack was God's judgment on America's liberalism, didn't help. That George Bush claimed to have consulted his father - his Heavenly Father - before invading Iraq, only cemented the idea that a world without God would be a less violent world.
***
These three conditions have now collided and have formed this New Atheism, which is now snowballing downhill, picking up momentum as it comes. But is it going to hit the church? Unlikely, though it may crush a few minivans in the parking lot.
The church triumphant has little to worry about from this trend because The New Atheism has no contact with real Christianity. Christians already know that the Gospel is good news, and that Christ calls us to love everyone, not to violence.
Most people, I think are also in disagreement with the idea that life is better without God. As Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are keen to emphasize - they don't want to go to heaven. They don't feel that God adds anything to the equation - Hitchens compares the idea of a providentially ordained universe as a sort of celestial North Korea. These guys prefer to be alone in the universe. I think most Christians would disagree.
How far removed their critique is from reality means that few Christians will feel the impact of the argument.
But for many people in the world, this caricature seems real enough.
This new Internet trend - the blasphemy challenge - shows that lots of folks are open to rejecting God altogether.
But I cannot believe that these blasphemous bloggers are really rejecting the Christian God. Is it even possible to reject perfect love (Barth calls this the "impossible possibility")? If we reject perfection, can we really believe it to be perfect? I think we can, in some ultimate sense, choose God over ourselves (Socrates thought not). But I doubt that so many would so quick to reject God if they thought Him perfectly Good.
***
So what do we do?
I have no doubt that Dawkins, Pullman, Harris, and all those bloggers feel as though they have finally nailed Jesus to the cross of science. And they are free to hammer away. The Christian God is used to this sort of treatment. He can take it. And none of their arguments - not evolution or the scientific method - not the crusades or the problem of evil - have been sufficient to kill Christian truth.
But the church militant must still deal with real people, no matter how confused their ideas.
What are we to make of the growing anti-religious sentiment?
Watch a few of the blasphemy challenge videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE) and see if you find the effect as chilling as I do.
Though I think the challenge mis-gets what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is (the author of Mark comments that Jesus warns them of blasphemy because they credited Jesus' power to Satan), it is still unnerving to see very young people seeking to reject their religious upbringing by denying the Holy Spirit in the strongest way they know how.
What response can we offer to this? Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort tried to respond to the Blasphemy Challenge (http://www.rationalresponders.com/) but with little success.
It is impossible to dialogue with Dawkins or Falwell or Bin Laden, because they are demagogues. Hitchens and Harris are bombastic provocateurs more than philosophers, and teenagers can't sit still long enough to debate.
I say nothing of conversion - only conversation - but even this seems impossible.
Julia Sweeney's monologue "Letting Go of God" is a much more tender and honest position to take, and I could see chatting over tea with her about religion. But what can we say to people who are convinced that religion can't be true (because of an false science/faith dichotomy) and who wouldn't want it to be true even if there were no dichotomy?
I invite comment, as I'm trying to shape this into a larger piece.
And don't say "Just live the life Christ calls us to live in humble silence." That's a cop out.
***
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GIIVideo
http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3949
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html#3326723723176082734
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo